(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

(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

The Golden Rule of legal concealed carry is you have a duty to avoid scenarios that can escalate. He sought one out. That's no bueno.

I never defended Babbitt, either. She shouldn't have been murdered, but do stupid things, win stupid prizes. Same with this guy.

I have thought about this many times. What would I have done if I were in that crowd of "peaceful" protesters at the Capitol, and then it turned into a melee with people climbing through windows and generally causing chaos?

I know exactly what I would have done. Turn around and get out of there as quickly as possible. And never go back in a similar situation.

And with Pretti, he did the exact opposite of that, and inserted himself where he should not have been, interfering with an ICE op, then resisting violently. And he was stupid enough to bring a loaded gun.

IMO, that was suicide by cop, although unintentional. I just think he was a serious zealot dumb***.

(01-26-2026 10:33 AM)rath v2.0 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

The Golden Rule of legal concealed carry is you have a duty to avoid scenarios that can escalate. He sought one out. That's no bueno.

1000000%

And it came out via his parents he never carried the damn thing. You either carry or you dont.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(01-26-2026 10:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I never defended Babbitt, either. She shouldn't have been murdered, but do stupid things, win stupid prizes. Same with this guy.

I have thought about this many times. What would I have done if I were in that crowd of "peaceful" protesters at the Capitol, and then it turned into a melee with people climbing through windows and generally causing chaos.

I know what I would have done. Turn around and get out of there as quickly as possible. And never go back in a similar situation.

And with Pretti, he did the exact opposite of that, and inserted himself where he should not have been, interfering with an ICE op, then resisting violently. And he was stupid enough to bring a loaded gun.

IMO, that was suicide by cop.

Yes

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(01-26-2026 10:33 AM)rath v2.0 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

The Golden Rule of legal concealed carry is you have a duty to avoid scenarios that can escalate. He sought one out. That's no bueno.

100% correct! Honestly, I'm losing what little sympathy I had for these people. Obstruct LEO's, scream at them, spit, throw things, ignore lawful orders, and stuff happens. Honestly, with all the garbage going on in MN, I'm surprised there hasn't been many more of these types of incidents. Folks on the left screech about "untrained/unqualified LEO's". If that were truly the case there would be many more of these types of things on a daily basis up there.

(01-26-2026 10:33 AM)rath v2.0 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

The Golden Rule of legal concealed carry is you have a duty to avoid scenarios that can escalate. He sought one out. That's no bueno.

I carry a pistol everywhere I go, posted or not. The only places I won't carry are places I'll be wanded or have to pass through a metal detector OR large, crowded events.

Not that I would ever participate in any kind of protest, but if I were to do such a thing, I sure wouldn't carry my pistol with me. Even though I exercise very strict impulse control when I have it on me, there's just no telling what might happen. It's not worth it, and the risk in a large crowd isn't one guy with a gun; it's a stampede or a bomb or something equally as devastating. Having a pistol on me isn't going to prevent anything, so why take the chance?

This idiot thought the risk justified carrying, and in doing so he bears the bulk of the blame for his death.

There are a lot of videos going around about the SIG P320 and its design flaws. Those flaws were discovered and corrected many years ago. I sold one to the son-in-law of a poster here but only after I had sent it back to the factory for repair and upgrade. If If he had an original version and didn't send it in for repair, then he was an idiot for that too. However, that weapon was not dropped, causing an accidental discharge. The agent who took the pistol accidentally discharged that firearm and started the whole shooting match. Is he to be faulted? Nope. He was doing the right thing by disarming a protestor at a violent event who tried to impede LEOs from doing their job.

That dude would still be alive today if not for his own stupidity.

Yep. MN is not a mandatory disclose state (duty to inform police that you are carrying when you come into contact with them) but it's a decent practice just from a courtesy perspective and to reduce any potential stressful situations.

The goal of conceal carry is to get you and yours home safely. He was an idiot who likely did not have much experience or training.

(01-26-2026 01:43 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 11:54 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 11:03 PM)WKUYG 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.

Civil laws are different and your actions are held at a higher step of responsibility. The cop who had that gun every step is going to be looked at and the argument is going to be he should have took better care in disarming the gun. Or handling it. Without that gun going off there is no shooting. But it will never go to court, it will be settled.

Could be. IDK the nuances of the law in cases like that. My intuition is that if you're performing lawful duties, and the gun you're carrying has a tendency to misfire and he's not really aware of that, then maybe he loses civilly, but I don't think it's a slam dunk, by any means.

The agency would likely be who settles.

I'll believe it when I see it. I think law enforcement agencies get some amount of liability protection. I read something about it recently.

And...here ya go...

Quote:AI Overview

Yes, law enforcement agencies and officers in the USA have significant liability protections, most notably qualified immunity. This judge-created doctrine shields government officials from civil lawsuits for monetary damages unless they violate "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights. Additionally, the "public duty doctrine" often protects agencies by holding that police owe duties to the public at large, not specific individuals.

Key Aspects of Liability Protection

Qualified Immunity: Protects officials unless a previous court decision with similar facts found the action unconstitutional. It applies even when officials unintentionally or recklessly violate the law.

"Clearly Established" Requirement: A high bar for plaintiffs, requiring prior case law that explicitly makes the action illegal.

Public Duty Doctrine: Generally protects police from liability for failing to prevent a crime or provide protection, though exceptions exist for "special relationships".

Scope: Protects against civil lawsuits, not criminal charges.

Limitations and Reforms

State-Level Reform: Four states—Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Montana—have restricted or removed the use of qualified immunity as a defense in state courts.

Intervention Duty: Some states have created statutory duties for officers to intervene in, or report, excessive force by colleagues.

Liability Insurance: Many officers, particularly federal, utilize liability insurance to cover legal defense costs.

While these protections are often intended to allow officers to perform discretionary duties without constant fear of lawsuits, critics argue they can prevent accountability for misconduct, including excessive force and civil rights violations.

I;m not going to do a search for it but the number is probably endless in the amount of settlements from police shootings, beatings, car accidents. But will name two well known cases....

Floyd
Ashli Babbit

(01-26-2026 11:16 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 01:43 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 11:54 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 11:03 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Civil laws are different and your actions are held at a higher step of responsibility. The cop who had that gun every step is going to be looked at and the argument is going to be he should have took better care in disarming the gun. Or handling it. Without that gun going off there is no shooting. But it will never go to court, it will be settled.

Could be. IDK the nuances of the law in cases like that. My intuition is that if you're performing lawful duties, and the gun you're carrying has a tendency to misfire and he's not really aware of that, then maybe he loses civilly, but I don't think it's a slam dunk, by any means.

The agency would likely be who settles.

I'll believe it when I see it. I think law enforcement agencies get some amount of liability protection. I read something about it recently.

And...here ya go...

Quote:AI Overview

Yes, law enforcement agencies and officers in the USA have significant liability protections, most notably qualified immunity. This judge-created doctrine shields government officials from civil lawsuits for monetary damages unless they violate "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights. Additionally, the "public duty doctrine" often protects agencies by holding that police owe duties to the public at large, not specific individuals.

Key Aspects of Liability Protection

Qualified Immunity: Protects officials unless a previous court decision with similar facts found the action unconstitutional. It applies even when officials unintentionally or recklessly violate the law.

"Clearly Established" Requirement: A high bar for plaintiffs, requiring prior case law that explicitly makes the action illegal.

Public Duty Doctrine: Generally protects police from liability for failing to prevent a crime or provide protection, though exceptions exist for "special relationships".

Scope: Protects against civil lawsuits, not criminal charges.

Limitations and Reforms

State-Level Reform: Four states—Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Montana—have restricted or removed the use of qualified immunity as a defense in state courts.

Intervention Duty: Some states have created statutory duties for officers to intervene in, or report, excessive force by colleagues.

Liability Insurance: Many officers, particularly federal, utilize liability insurance to cover legal defense costs.

While these protections are often intended to allow officers to perform discretionary duties without constant fear of lawsuits, critics argue they can prevent accountability for misconduct, including excessive force and civil rights violations.

I;m not going to do a search for it but the number is probably endless in the amount of settlements from police shootings, beatings, car accidents. But will name two well known cases....

Floyd
Ashli Babbit

I think perhaps TripleA is confusing suing the officer directly(can't unless it is under extreme circumstances) vs the city/department.

Cities(tax payers) pay out settlements all the time for police officers messing up. Or not messing up. Most of the time it easier for them to settle and make it go away than fight it even if the officer was in the right. The plaintiffs are generally looking for a pay day not some big court battle to expose wrongdoing.

(01-26-2026 10:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I never defended Babbitt, either. She shouldn't have been murdered, but do stupid things, win stupid prizes. Same with this guy.

I have thought about this many times. What would I have done if I were in that crowd of "peaceful" protesters at the Capitol, and then it turned into a melee with people climbing through windows and generally causing chaos.

I know what I would have done. Turn around and get out of there as quickly as possible. And never go back in a similar situation.

And with Pretti, he did the exact opposite of that, and inserted himself where he should not have been, interfering with an ICE op, then resisting violently. And he was stupid enough to bring a loaded gun.

IMO, that was suicide by cop.

Same. Hate it for Babbitt and Pretti but the situation could have been avoided. Just don't do it.

(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.

Good was killed while assaulting a police officer and legally should get nothing. Doesn't mean they won't settle.
Pretti, remains to be seen, but he was the only one who committed a crime at the time. It was not self-defense, but wasn't murder.

(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.

Not murdered. Hit someone with a car, get shot

(01-26-2026 11:21 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 11:16 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 01:43 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 11:54 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Could be. IDK the nuances of the law in cases like that. My intuition is that if you're performing lawful duties, and the gun you're carrying has a tendency to misfire and he's not really aware of that, then maybe he loses civilly, but I don't think it's a slam dunk, by any means.

The agency would likely be who settles.

I'll believe it when I see it. I think law enforcement agencies get some amount of liability protection. I read something about it recently.

And...here ya go...

Quote:AI Overview

Yes, law enforcement agencies and officers in the USA have significant liability protections, most notably qualified immunity. This judge-created doctrine shields government officials from civil lawsuits for monetary damages unless they violate "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights. Additionally, the "public duty doctrine" often protects agencies by holding that police owe duties to the public at large, not specific individuals.

Key Aspects of Liability Protection

Qualified Immunity: Protects officials unless a previous court decision with similar facts found the action unconstitutional. It applies even when officials unintentionally or recklessly violate the law.

"Clearly Established" Requirement: A high bar for plaintiffs, requiring prior case law that explicitly makes the action illegal.

Public Duty Doctrine: Generally protects police from liability for failing to prevent a crime or provide protection, though exceptions exist for "special relationships".

Scope: Protects against civil lawsuits, not criminal charges.

Limitations and Reforms

State-Level Reform: Four states—Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Montana—have restricted or removed the use of qualified immunity as a defense in state courts.

Intervention Duty: Some states have created statutory duties for officers to intervene in, or report, excessive force by colleagues.

Liability Insurance: Many officers, particularly federal, utilize liability insurance to cover legal defense costs.

While these protections are often intended to allow officers to perform discretionary duties without constant fear of lawsuits, critics argue they can prevent accountability for misconduct, including excessive force and civil rights violations.

I;m not going to do a search for it but the number is probably endless in the amount of settlements from police shootings, beatings, car accidents. But will name two well known cases....

Floyd
Ashli Babbit

I think perhaps TripleA is confusing suing the officer directly(can't unless it is under extreme circumstances) vs the city/department.

Cities(tax payers) pay out settlements all the time for police officers messing up. Or not messing up. Most of the time it easier for them to settle and make it go away than fight it even if the officer was in the right. The plaintiffs are generally looking for a pay day not some big court battle to expose wrongdoing.

I didn't confuse anything. That was exactly what I meant. The search mentions individual LEOs AND agencies.

I have never given a second's thought to this subject before now, and I have no clue if any agency has ever been sued, or any cop. What I said was my gut reaction opinion.

Common sense says they have to have some type of limited liability, as well as liability insurance, so who cares?

I just think in this situation, given the protester's actions, I would be really surprised if any shooter gets nailed. I never gave any thought to the agency itself, but that would also surprise me, given the circumstances, what the perp did, him carrying, resisting violently, etc.

And I'm talking this particular circumstance only. I don't know of and don't care at all about any other instance, although it makes sense that agencies would get sued a lot, and win some and lose some. Individual cops, probably much less.

But suing the gov in this case, and winning, just makes zero sense to me. Doesn't mean it won't happen this time, just my opinion.

It's more than just limited liability.

(01-26-2026 11:49 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  It's more than just limited liability.

Yep. The first line in the search says "significant liability protection, including qualified immunity."

And it mentions both individuals AND agencies.

(01-26-2026 11:42 AM)shere khan 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.

Not murdered. Hit someone with a car, get shot

I was referring to Ashli Babbit.

(01-26-2026 11:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  Good was killed while assaulting a police officer and legally should get nothing. Doesn't mean they won't settle.
Pretti, remains to be seen, but he was the only one who committed a crime at the time. It was not self-defense, but wasn't murder.

Good didn't "assault" any one.
Pretti did not commit any "crime."

As much as micropenis brownshirt leader Bovino keeps insisting, filming and shouting at his Nazi stormtroopers is not a criminal act.

(01-26-2026 11:54 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 11:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  Good was killed while assaulting a police officer and legally should get nothing. Doesn't mean they won't settle.
Pretti, remains to be seen, but he was the only one who committed a crime at the time. It was not self-defense, but wasn't murder.

Good didn't "assault" any one.
Pretti did not commit any "crime."

As much as micropenis brownshirt leader Bovino keeps insisting, filming and shouting at his Nazi stormtroopers is not a criminal act.

That seems to be the opinion of the Marxists on the left. They feel hitting an agent with a car or carrying a gun when confronting federal agents while they perform their duty is A-okay. Reality is a bit different.