(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.

Key Recent Instances of Rejected Qualified Immunity
LAPD Shooting (2026): A federal judge denied immunity to LAPD officers in the 2022 shooting of Jermaine Petit, finding body camera footage showed he was walking away and did not pose an immediate threat.


Target Store Shooting (2026): A judge denied immunity to Ocola County deputies, stating their use of deadly force in a, 2026 incident was too egregious to warrant protection.


Wrongful Arrest (2025): The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied immunity to a Jackson police detective, with Judge Don Willett criticizing the doctrine's "legal, social, and practical defects".

"Just Following Orders" (2026): Courts, including the 5th and 6th Circuits, have rejected a blanket defense that officers are shielded simply because a superior ordered the action, requiring a more detailed analysis of whether the order was reasonable.

When Qualified Immunity Does Not Apply (Key Scenarios):

Violation of Clearly Established Law: If a court has already ruled that an action, or one with nearly identical facts, is unconstitutional, an official cannot claim immunity for doing it again.

Unreasonable Mistake of Fact: Even if an official makes a factual mistake (like thinking a phone is a gun), they lose immunity if a reasonable officer wouldn't have made that mistake in the same situation.

Malicious or Deliberate Indifference: Officials who act with intent to harm or show reckless disregard for rights are generally not protected.

No Relevant Precedent: If there isn't enough case law to put the constitutional question "beyond debate," officials might lose immunity, as courts look for clear guidance.

State-Level Changes: Some states (like Colorado) have passed laws to limit or abolish qualified immunity for state-level lawsuits, creating separate standards.

Criminal Cases: The doctrine doesn't prevent state or federal criminal charges against officers.
The Two-Part Test for Granting Immunity:

A judge typically uses a test to decide if immunity applies:
Violation: Did the official violate a constitutional right?
Clearly Established: Was that right "clearly established" at the time of the conduct?

The cop walked away with a loaded gun, quickly and with his finger on the trigger. Should have 100% known not to do that

AI Overview
Case law regarding police officers accidentally discharging firearms with a finger on the trigger often centers on whether the action constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable seizure) or, if no, a "seizure" occurred, a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process violation. Courts often distinguish between intentional and accidental shootings, with finger-on-trigger cases frequently leading to civil liability or findings of gross incompetence, such as in Stamps v. Town of Framingham (officer pointed gun with finger on trigger at compliant citizen).

Key aspects and cases include:

Civil Liability: In Stamps, the court indicated that having a finger on the trigger, resulting in an accidental shooting of a compliant person, can constitute a violation of rights.

Qualified Immunity: Courts have rejected qualified immunity for officers in accidental shooting cases where the, law was "clearly established" that such actions were not permissible.

"Negligent Discharge" vs. "Accidental": Many accidental shootings are classified as "involuntary" or "negligent" discharges, where a startle response or balance disruption causes the finger to pull the trigger.

Legal Consequences: While some incidents result in qualified immunity, others lead to multimillion-dollar settlements, such as the $2 million settlement in an investigation involving a 2019 case where a gun discharged during a, search.

Departmental Action: In some instances, such as an incident in Jacksonville, an officer was subject to termination for "gross incompetence" after a, gun discharged during a traffic stop, with evidence showing a finger in the trigger guard.

These cases often hinge on whether the action was reckless or, merely negligent, with many courts focusing on the, violation of, standard training protocols regarding trigger finger discipline.

(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?

Try some critical thinking. You're almost there. Obama deported a lot...this wasn't really an issue then. There is a right way to do this.

And if these snowflakes can't handling people exercising their Constitutional rights, then they need to be in a new line of work.

(01-26-2026 03:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(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?

Try some critical thinking. You're almost there. Obama deported a lot...this wasn't really an issue then. There is a right way to do this.

And if these snowflakes can't handling people exercising their Constitutional rights, then they need to be in a new line of work.

it's called cooperating with ICE vs. impeding; which = seditious/obstructionist behavior ... ewe couldn't critically think ewer way out of a straight line 'maze'....

(01-26-2026 03:51 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 03:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(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?

Try some critical thinking. You're almost there. Obama deported a lot...this wasn't really an issue then. There is a right way to do this.

And if these snowflakes can't handling people exercising their Constitutional rights, then they need to be in a new line of work.

it's called cooperating with ICE vs. impeding; which = seditious/obstructionist behavior ... ewe couldn't critically think ewer way out of a straight line 'maze'....

Yep. ICE isn't the issue as was proven when ICE did the same thing under Obama. The only difference is DTS and hating anything Trump related which leads to people interfering with ICE and thus confrontation.

(01-26-2026 04:06 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 03:51 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 03:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(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?

Try some critical thinking. You're almost there. Obama deported a lot...this wasn't really an issue then. There is a right way to do this.

And if these snowflakes can't handling people exercising their Constitutional rights, then they need to be in a new line of work.

it's called cooperating with ICE vs. impeding; which = seditious/obstructionist behavior ... ewe couldn't critically think ewer way out of a straight line 'maze'....

Yep. ICE isn't the issue as was proven when ICE did the same thing under Obama. The only difference is DTS and hating anything Trump related which leads to people interfering with ICE and thus confrontation.

not only is state leadership not cooperating, but they're also goading and creating the chaotic atmosphere that has led to two deaths, another shooting, and an officer losing a digit ... again, if every one of 'em involved aren't prosecuted STAT, it's a given this country is no longer is a constitutional republic supported by the basis of law...

(01-26-2026 04:06 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 03:51 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 03:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(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?

Try some critical thinking. You're almost there. Obama deported a lot...this wasn't really an issue then. There is a right way to do this.

And if these snowflakes can't handling people exercising their Constitutional rights, then they need to be in a new line of work.

it's called cooperating with ICE vs. impeding; which = seditious/obstructionist behavior ... ewe couldn't critically think ewer way out of a straight line 'maze'....

Yep. ICE isn't the issue as was proven when ICE did the same thing under Obama. The only difference is DTS and hating anything Trump related which leads to people interfering with ICE and thus confrontation.

Actually Obama numbers were turn aways

His interior numbers plummeted during his terms

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(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.

They were both idiots. Put yourself in stupid situations like that and you get what comes to you.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using CSNbbs mobile app

(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.

Irony so thick you could slice it with a knife. The side that is protecting violent criminals whines about intimidation tactics...while actively using intimidation tactics, violent ones at that.

Your blindness is matched only by your stupidity. You idiots see yourselves as revolutionaries; it's a romantic notion for you all until the reality of an actual violent revolution starts to infringe on your comfort zones.

You'll see. Sooner or later you'll receive clarity that will shake your entire world.

(01-26-2026 05:08 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(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.

Irony so thick you could slice it with a knife. The side that is protecting violent criminals whines about intimidation tactics...while actively using intimidation tactics, violent ones at that.

Your blindness is matched only by your stupidity. You idiots see yourselves as revolutionaries; it's a romantic notion for you all until the reality of an actual violent revolution starts to infringe on your comfort zones.

You'll see. Sooner or later you'll receive clarity that will shake your entire world.

Besides the moron group filming the officers is the very reason they cover their faces. The POS left manufacturers rage. And they (example above referring to RWT) lick it up like a two dollar hore.

56 detainees died during the Obama Administration. Don't remember THAT ever being on "The News".

(01-26-2026 02:08 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Key Recent Instances of Rejected Qualified Immunity
LAPD Shooting (2026): A federal judge denied immunity to LAPD officers in the 2022 shooting of Jermaine Petit, finding body camera footage showed he was walking away and did not pose an immediate threat.


Target Store Shooting (2026): A judge denied immunity to Ocola County deputies, stating their use of deadly force in a, 2026 incident was too egregious to warrant protection.


Wrongful Arrest (2025): The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied immunity to a Jackson police detective, with Judge Don Willett criticizing the doctrine's "legal, social, and practical defects".

"Just Following Orders" (2026): Courts, including the 5th and 6th Circuits, have rejected a blanket defense that officers are shielded simply because a superior ordered the action, requiring a more detailed analysis of whether the order was reasonable.

When Qualified Immunity Does Not Apply (Key Scenarios):

Violation of Clearly Established Law: If a court has already ruled that an action, or one with nearly identical facts, is unconstitutional, an official cannot claim immunity for doing it again.

Unreasonable Mistake of Fact: Even if an official makes a factual mistake (like thinking a phone is a gun), they lose immunity if a reasonable officer wouldn't have made that mistake in the same situation.

Malicious or Deliberate Indifference: Officials who act with intent to harm or show reckless disregard for rights are generally not protected.

No Relevant Precedent: If there isn't enough case law to put the constitutional question "beyond debate," officials might lose immunity, as courts look for clear guidance.

State-Level Changes: Some states (like Colorado) have passed laws to limit or abolish qualified immunity for state-level lawsuits, creating separate standards.

Criminal Cases: The doctrine doesn't prevent state or federal criminal charges against officers.
The Two-Part Test for Granting Immunity:

A judge typically uses a test to decide if immunity applies:
Violation: Did the official violate a constitutional right?
Clearly Established: Was that right "clearly established" at the time of the conduct?

The cop walked away with a loaded gun, quickly and with his finger on the trigger. Should have 100% known not to do that

All your examples seem to be local cops. That is not who I was talking about. I was talking about federal agents. You know, like the ones involved in this shooting.

You have examples of those?

And I bet that states cannot write laws to override the feds. State and local, sure.

(01-26-2026 06:39 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 02:08 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 01:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

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

(01-26-2026 12:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  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.

Key Recent Instances of Rejected Qualified Immunity
LAPD Shooting (2026): A federal judge denied immunity to LAPD officers in the 2022 shooting of Jermaine Petit, finding body camera footage showed he was walking away and did not pose an immediate threat.


Target Store Shooting (2026): A judge denied immunity to Ocola County deputies, stating their use of deadly force in a, 2026 incident was too egregious to warrant protection.


Wrongful Arrest (2025): The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied immunity to a Jackson police detective, with Judge Don Willett criticizing the doctrine's "legal, social, and practical defects".

"Just Following Orders" (2026): Courts, including the 5th and 6th Circuits, have rejected a blanket defense that officers are shielded simply because a superior ordered the action, requiring a more detailed analysis of whether the order was reasonable.

When Qualified Immunity Does Not Apply (Key Scenarios):

Violation of Clearly Established Law: If a court has already ruled that an action, or one with nearly identical facts, is unconstitutional, an official cannot claim immunity for doing it again.

Unreasonable Mistake of Fact: Even if an official makes a factual mistake (like thinking a phone is a gun), they lose immunity if a reasonable officer wouldn't have made that mistake in the same situation.

Malicious or Deliberate Indifference: Officials who act with intent to harm or show reckless disregard for rights are generally not protected.

No Relevant Precedent: If there isn't enough case law to put the constitutional question "beyond debate," officials might lose immunity, as courts look for clear guidance.

State-Level Changes: Some states (like Colorado) have passed laws to limit or abolish qualified immunity for state-level lawsuits, creating separate standards.

Criminal Cases: The doctrine doesn't prevent state or federal criminal charges against officers.
The Two-Part Test for Granting Immunity:

A judge typically uses a test to decide if immunity applies:
Violation: Did the official violate a constitutional right?
Clearly Established: Was that right "clearly established" at the time of the conduct?

The cop walked away with a loaded gun, quickly and with his finger on the trigger. Should have 100% known not to do that

All your examples seem to be local cops. That is not who I was talking about. I was talking about federal agents. You know, like the ones involved in this shooting.

You have examples of those?

And I bet that states cannot write laws to override the feds. State and local, sure.

All those cases were decided on federal law, all had qualified immunity. While I think there's a case, a good case in civil court, I'm not saying slam dunk. But this man died for one reason...

a cop doing something that 100% goes against every gun training class he took. Every rule on handling a loaded gun, or one he did not know if it was loaded or not. Shite happens, even with trained people and going by all of their training, and rules. The cop that took the gun wasnt the only one to make a mistake. So did everyone who fired their gun.

With that there is one clear out that we are not talking about. It looks like when the one cop took the gun this guy moved his hand up to where it previously was on his body. The cop that started firing could say he saw his hand move and that's the reason he shot. I think its 100% a lie, the shot made them react but they can say that get a judge that is more on their side to make a ruling for them. I dont think it holds up on appeal.

(01-26-2026 07:13 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 06:39 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 02:08 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 01:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

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

Key Recent Instances of Rejected Qualified Immunity
LAPD Shooting (2026): A federal judge denied immunity to LAPD officers in the 2022 shooting of Jermaine Petit, finding body camera footage showed he was walking away and did not pose an immediate threat.


Target Store Shooting (2026): A judge denied immunity to Ocola County deputies, stating their use of deadly force in a, 2026 incident was too egregious to warrant protection.


Wrongful Arrest (2025): The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied immunity to a Jackson police detective, with Judge Don Willett criticizing the doctrine's "legal, social, and practical defects".

"Just Following Orders" (2026): Courts, including the 5th and 6th Circuits, have rejected a blanket defense that officers are shielded simply because a superior ordered the action, requiring a more detailed analysis of whether the order was reasonable.

When Qualified Immunity Does Not Apply (Key Scenarios):

Violation of Clearly Established Law: If a court has already ruled that an action, or one with nearly identical facts, is unconstitutional, an official cannot claim immunity for doing it again.

Unreasonable Mistake of Fact: Even if an official makes a factual mistake (like thinking a phone is a gun), they lose immunity if a reasonable officer wouldn't have made that mistake in the same situation.

Malicious or Deliberate Indifference: Officials who act with intent to harm or show reckless disregard for rights are generally not protected.

No Relevant Precedent: If there isn't enough case law to put the constitutional question "beyond debate," officials might lose immunity, as courts look for clear guidance.

State-Level Changes: Some states (like Colorado) have passed laws to limit or abolish qualified immunity for state-level lawsuits, creating separate standards.

Criminal Cases: The doctrine doesn't prevent state or federal criminal charges against officers.
The Two-Part Test for Granting Immunity:

A judge typically uses a test to decide if immunity applies:
Violation: Did the official violate a constitutional right?
Clearly Established: Was that right "clearly established" at the time of the conduct?

The cop walked away with a loaded gun, quickly and with his finger on the trigger. Should have 100% known not to do that

All your examples seem to be local cops. That is not who I was talking about. I was talking about federal agents. You know, like the ones involved in this shooting.

You have examples of those?

And I bet that states cannot write laws to override the feds. State and local, sure.

All those cases were decided on federal law, all had qualified immunity. While I think there's a case, a good case in civil court, I'm not saying slam dunk. But this man died for one reason...

a cop doing something that 100% goes against every gun training class he took. Every rule on handling a loaded gun, or one he did not know if it was loaded or not. Shite happens, even with trained people and going by all of their training, and rules. The cop that took the gun wasnt the only one to make a mistake. So did everyone who fired their gun.

With that there is one clear out that we are not talking about. It looks like when the one cop took the gun this guy moved his hand up to where it previously was on his body. The cop that started firing could say he saw his hand move and that's the reason he shot. I think its 100% a lie, the shot made them react but they can say that get a judge that is more on their side to make a ruling for them. I dont think it holds up on appeal.

I think I caused confusion, b/c I just noticed I said the family could not sue ICE (or actually, CBP). Of course they can sue. I should have said they cannot sue ICE, and win.

Beyond that, the agent who disarmed the perp obviously shouldn't have been running with his finger anywhere near the trigger. That is a major screw up, and apparently was the reason the other agents then fired on the perp, who reportedly had 10 bullet holes in him.

But if the perp had stayed out of the situation, and not resisted arrest while armed (that was REALLY stupid), none of the other things would have happened. To me, that kills any chance of his family winning a lawsuit, b/c the perp broke the law by his own actions, twice.

(01-26-2026 06:12 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  56 detainees died during the Obama Administration. Don't remember THAT ever being on "The News".

Who built the cages....

Our nation is being taken apart from the inside by Marxist groups posing as 501's who are being funded by Chinese and other communists from outside the country.

And no one in the MSM is taking about it or acknowledging any of it.

Neville Roy Singham is the name you guys need to look up. He is a communist billionaire who works with the Chinese communist government and is one of the leading funders of this in Minnesota.

(01-26-2026 04:06 PM)VA49er Wrote:  ...ICE did the same thing under Obama...

You live in a ******* dream world.

(01-26-2026 05:08 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(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.

Irony so thick you could slice it with a knife. The side that is protecting violent criminals whines about intimidation tactics...while actively using intimidation tactics, violent ones at that.

Your blindness is matched only by your stupidity. You idiots see yourselves as revolutionaries; it's a romantic notion for you all until the reality of an actual violent revolution starts to infringe on your comfort zones.

You'll see. Sooner or later you'll receive clarity that will shake your entire world.

Meanwhile, you're protecting violent ICE agents who lack the skill set to perform their duties...while protecting an administrations violent intimidation tactics and trampling of several Constitutional Amendments.

Irony indeed!

But please...keep pretending that the left is just going to lay down and take it without exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. Sooner or later you'll receive clarity.

The funny thing is the same man Obama awarded a medal for for doing what he's now doing is the same man Dems currently hate for doing the exact same thing for which Obama gave him a medal.

(01-26-2026 07:13 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 06:39 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 02:08 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 01:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

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

Key Recent Instances of Rejected Qualified Immunity
LAPD Shooting (2026): A federal judge denied immunity to LAPD officers in the 2022 shooting of Jermaine Petit, finding body camera footage showed he was walking away and did not pose an immediate threat.


Target Store Shooting (2026): A judge denied immunity to Ocola County deputies, stating their use of deadly force in a, 2026 incident was too egregious to warrant protection.


Wrongful Arrest (2025): The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied immunity to a Jackson police detective, with Judge Don Willett criticizing the doctrine's "legal, social, and practical defects".

"Just Following Orders" (2026): Courts, including the 5th and 6th Circuits, have rejected a blanket defense that officers are shielded simply because a superior ordered the action, requiring a more detailed analysis of whether the order was reasonable.

When Qualified Immunity Does Not Apply (Key Scenarios):

Violation of Clearly Established Law: If a court has already ruled that an action, or one with nearly identical facts, is unconstitutional, an official cannot claim immunity for doing it again.

Unreasonable Mistake of Fact: Even if an official makes a factual mistake (like thinking a phone is a gun), they lose immunity if a reasonable officer wouldn't have made that mistake in the same situation.

Malicious or Deliberate Indifference: Officials who act with intent to harm or show reckless disregard for rights are generally not protected.

No Relevant Precedent: If there isn't enough case law to put the constitutional question "beyond debate," officials might lose immunity, as courts look for clear guidance.

State-Level Changes: Some states (like Colorado) have passed laws to limit or abolish qualified immunity for state-level lawsuits, creating separate standards.

Criminal Cases: The doctrine doesn't prevent state or federal criminal charges against officers.
The Two-Part Test for Granting Immunity:

A judge typically uses a test to decide if immunity applies:
Violation: Did the official violate a constitutional right?
Clearly Established: Was that right "clearly established" at the time of the conduct?

The cop walked away with a loaded gun, quickly and with his finger on the trigger. Should have 100% known not to do that

All your examples seem to be local cops. That is not who I was talking about. I was talking about federal agents. You know, like the ones involved in this shooting.

You have examples of those?

And I bet that states cannot write laws to override the feds. State and local, sure.

All those cases were decided on federal law, all had qualified immunity. While I think there's a case, a good case in civil court, I'm not saying slam dunk. But this man died for one reason...

a cop doing something that 100% goes against every gun training class he took. Every rule on handling a loaded gun, or one he did not know if it was loaded or not. Shite happens, even with trained people and going by all of their training, and rules. The cop that took the gun wasnt the only one to make a mistake. So did everyone who fired their gun.

With that there is one clear out that we are not talking about. It looks like when the one cop took the gun this guy moved his hand up to where it previously was on his body. The cop that started firing could say he saw his hand move and that's the reason he shot. I think its 100% a lie, the shot made them react but they can say that get a judge that is more on their side to make a ruling for them. I dont think it holds up on appeal.

He...and maybe you...also seem to be running with this yet to be confirmed accusation that the guy who disarmed him discharged a round from his weapon.

Sort of odd that almost immediately, Noem and her lying band of liars, concluded all the facts but somehow left that one out...and we're now multiple days out since the murder.