Minneapolis ICE shooting

58,369 Views | 1746 Replies | Last: 6 min ago by Forest Bueller III
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 10:19a, 1/26/26
boognish_bear said:
It's an almost impossible job for these agents with all the constant chaos around them



I have been told by resident liberals here that these Officers just need to practice de-escalation techniques

Are they not doing enough descaling and talk therapy with these protestors trying to storm the hotel?
Reply Quote
3
Porteroso
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Harrison Bergeron • 12:03p, 1/26/26
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Oldbear83 said:
It's important to consider all relevant elements of these incidents.

Both started with foolish individuals being told by radical groups they should interfere in a live police action.


That has no relevance at all. You don't kill someone then start going back in time to find some sort of justification. You only kill them in the moment you determine it is necessary to preserve your safety or the safety of someone else.

This guy, on the ground, unarmed, was no threat. Maybe the shooter thought he was armed, sure. But in fact, he was not. It is an error by law enforcement any way you look at it.

Is it legal to interfere with law enforcement?

Do you think law enforcement should shoot unarmed trespassers?

How did he interfere? He was not reprimanded, did not disobey orders i know of, was not at a police scene... Is talking to law enforcement interfering? Does he have the right to have his phone out of his pocket? Is it legal to help a lady up off the ground?
Reply Quote
4
Porteroso
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KaiBear • 12:04p, 1/26/26
KaiBear said:
Porteroso said:
Oldbear83 said:
It's important to consider all relevant elements of these incidents.

Both started with foolish individuals being told by radical groups they should interfere in a live police action.


That has no relevance at all. You don't kill someone then start going back in time to find some sort of justification. You only kill them in the moment you determine it is necessary to preserve your safety or the safety of someone else.

This guy, on the ground, unarmed, was no threat. Maybe the shooter thought he was armed, sure. But in fact, he was not. It is an error by law enforcement any way you look at it.


Bull****

No one has the right to physically interfere with ANY law enforcement officers while they are actively involved attempting to arrest a felon. Regardless if the felon is an illegal or not.

And to 'accidentally' do so while possessing a loaded 9mm with TWO mags is anything but accidental. ( I occasionally conceal carry a 9mm. NEVEr with two mags ).

One of my best friends is a retired federal marshal. He said when you have a chaotic situation like this and someone yells 'GUN' ; you only have a second to react or you are DEAD. Said it is obviously a clean shoot.

You lose the argument when you start attacking the Constitution. So dumb. And you probably even think you believe in freedom.
Reply Quote
1
Harrison Bergeron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Porteroso • 12:10p, 1/26/26
Porteroso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Oldbear83 said:
It's important to consider all relevant elements of these incidents.

Both started with foolish individuals being told by radical groups they should interfere in a live police action.


That has no relevance at all. You don't kill someone then start going back in time to find some sort of justification. You only kill them in the moment you determine it is necessary to preserve your safety or the safety of someone else.

This guy, on the ground, unarmed, was no threat. Maybe the shooter thought he was armed, sure. But in fact, he was not. It is an error by law enforcement any way you look at it.

Is it legal to interfere with law enforcement?

Do you think law enforcement should shoot unarmed trespassers?

How did he interfere? He was not reprimanded, did not disobey orders i know of, was not at a police scene... Is talking to law enforcement interfering? Does he have the right to have his phone out of his pocket? Is it legal to help a lady up off the ground?

Let's be polite and play the game of I will answer your questions if you answer mine.
Reply Quote
2
Porteroso
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jack Bauer • 12:15p, 1/26/26
Jack Bauer said:
I support any American citizen's right to protest, even if I disagree with their position. But this to me is over the line.


Agree. Not only over the line, but making more errors more likely. Indirectly contributing to the next killing. Law enforcement are people, not robots. You can train a person to ignore hate, and serve those harassing and in rare instances, even attacking you, but you can never be 100% successful with that type of training. All it takes is 1 officer being pushed beyond his/her limits.
Reply Quote
Porteroso
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Harrison Bergeron • 12:17p, 1/26/26
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Oldbear83 said:
It's important to consider all relevant elements of these incidents.

Both started with foolish individuals being told by radical groups they should interfere in a live police action.


That has no relevance at all. You don't kill someone then start going back in time to find some sort of justification. You only kill them in the moment you determine it is necessary to preserve your safety or the safety of someone else.

This guy, on the ground, unarmed, was no threat. Maybe the shooter thought he was armed, sure. But in fact, he was not. It is an error by law enforcement any way you look at it.

Is it legal to interfere with law enforcement?

Do you think law enforcement should shoot unarmed trespassers?

How did he interfere? He was not reprimanded, did not disobey orders i know of, was not at a police scene... Is talking to law enforcement interfering? Does he have the right to have his phone out of his pocket? Is it legal to help a lady up off the ground?

Let's be polite and play the game of I will answer your questions if you answer mine.

I answered the first. He did not interfere. The second must have come from a bad AI prompt. You go.
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Porteroso • 12:21p, 1/26/26
Porteroso, maybe your handlers didn't tell you, but saying 'the Constitution' does not mean the Constitution says what you claim.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Reply Quote
1
Harrison Bergeron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Porteroso • 12:25p, 1/26/26
Porteroso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Oldbear83 said:
It's important to consider all relevant elements of these incidents.

Both started with foolish individuals being told by radical groups they should interfere in a live police action.


That has no relevance at all. You don't kill someone then start going back in time to find some sort of justification. You only kill them in the moment you determine it is necessary to preserve your safety or the safety of someone else.

This guy, on the ground, unarmed, was no threat. Maybe the shooter thought he was armed, sure. But in fact, he was not. It is an error by law enforcement any way you look at it.

Is it legal to interfere with law enforcement?

Do you think law enforcement should shoot unarmed trespassers?

How did he interfere? He was not reprimanded, did not disobey orders i know of, was not at a police scene... Is talking to law enforcement interfering? Does he have the right to have his phone out of his pocket? Is it legal to help a lady up off the ground?

Let's be polite and play the game of I will answer your questions if you answer mine.

I answered the first. He did not interfere. The second must have come from a bad AI prompt. You go.

Sweetheart, reading comprehension is your friend. When you figure it out, let me know.

(HINT: I was not talking about Pretti)
Reply Quote
1
ScottS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:25p, 1/26/26
Minneapolis Has a New Autonomous Zone with Armed Guards HotAir
Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:36p, 1/26/26
That Truth Social post from Trump is good to see. That should help to turn the temperature down.

Reply Quote
1
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:46p, 1/26/26
Reply Quote
Harrison Bergeron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:53p, 1/26/26
Noem does do some stupid PR stuff - I mean the dog story ... why would anyone think that is a good idea to put in your book.
Reply Quote
1
cowboycwr
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 12:53p, 1/26/26
boognish_bear said:


Notice the wording. Very carefully chosen.

They were called to protect property. Not the lives of ice agents. Or federal officers. But property.

Then when back up federal forces arrived the locals left….
Reply Quote
3
D. C. Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Porteroso • 12:57p, 1/26/26
Porteroso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Oldbear83 said:
It's important to consider all relevant elements of these incidents.

Both started with foolish individuals being told by radical groups they should interfere in a live police action.


That has no relevance at all. You don't kill someone then start going back in time to find some sort of justification. You only kill them in the moment you determine it is necessary to preserve your safety or the safety of someone else.

This guy, on the ground, unarmed, was no threat. Maybe the shooter thought he was armed, sure. But in fact, he was not. It is an error by law enforcement any way you look at it.

Is it legal to interfere with law enforcement?

Do you think law enforcement should shoot unarmed trespassers?

How did he interfere? He was not reprimanded, did not disobey orders i know of, was not at a police scene... Is talking to law enforcement interfering? Does he have the right to have his phone out of his pocket? Is it legal to help a lady up off the ground?

Let's be polite and play the game of I will answer your questions if you answer mine.

I answered the first. He did not interfere. The second must have come from a bad AI prompt. You go.


Are you quite sure that he didn't interfere? What was happening in the lead up to this disaster? In a general sense he was certainly interfering, and that was the purpose of the people who were there specifically to confront law enforcement officers. This is different from the immediate incident, but if I walk up on a cop who was interacting with another member of the public and started to insert myself into that situation, might that not constitute interfering?
Reply Quote
1
Porteroso
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Harrison Bergeron • 1:05p, 1/26/26
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Oldbear83 said:
It's important to consider all relevant elements of these incidents.

Both started with foolish individuals being told by radical groups they should interfere in a live police action.


That has no relevance at all. You don't kill someone then start going back in time to find some sort of justification. You only kill them in the moment you determine it is necessary to preserve your safety or the safety of someone else.

This guy, on the ground, unarmed, was no threat. Maybe the shooter thought he was armed, sure. But in fact, he was not. It is an error by law enforcement any way you look at it.

Is it legal to interfere with law enforcement?

Do you think law enforcement should shoot unarmed trespassers?

How did he interfere? He was not reprimanded, did not disobey orders i know of, was not at a police scene... Is talking to law enforcement interfering? Does he have the right to have his phone out of his pocket? Is it legal to help a lady up off the ground?

Let's be polite and play the game of I will answer your questions if you answer mine.

I answered the first. He did not interfere. The second must have come from a bad AI prompt. You go.

Sweetheart, reading comprehension is your friend. When you figure it out, let me know.

(HINT: I was not talking about Pretti)

Then don't reply to my post which is exactly about Pretti. Use that brain of yours.
Reply Quote
1
Porteroso
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to D. C. Bear • 1:12p, 1/26/26
D. C. Bear said:
Porteroso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Oldbear83 said:
It's important to consider all relevant elements of these incidents.

Both started with foolish individuals being told by radical groups they should interfere in a live police action.


That has no relevance at all. You don't kill someone then start going back in time to find some sort of justification. You only kill them in the moment you determine it is necessary to preserve your safety or the safety of someone else.

This guy, on the ground, unarmed, was no threat. Maybe the shooter thought he was armed, sure. But in fact, he was not. It is an error by law enforcement any way you look at it.

Is it legal to interfere with law enforcement?

Do you think law enforcement should shoot unarmed trespassers?

How did he interfere? He was not reprimanded, did not disobey orders i know of, was not at a police scene... Is talking to law enforcement interfering? Does he have the right to have his phone out of his pocket? Is it legal to help a lady up off the ground?

Let's be polite and play the game of I will answer your questions if you answer mine.

I answered the first. He did not interfere. The second must have come from a bad AI prompt. You go.


Are you quite sure that he didn't interfere? What was happening in the lead up to this disaster? In a general sense he was certainly interfering, and that was the purpose of the people who were there specifically to confront law enforcement officers. This is different from the immediate incident, but if I walk up on a cop who was interacting with another member of the public and started to insert myself into that situation, might that not constitute interfering?

Actually you dont know that he was there to interfere, but given him recording everything he clearly was observing.

Now I am not sure if pushing a lady to the ground is the same as arresting her, but if it is, if those words were uttered, then yes he was interfering. But I don't believe she was being arrested simply because she was merely assaulted, then left there on the ground for a bit. When they arrest these ladies, they normally have 3 or 4 guys piling onto them.

Do you know if she was under arrest at the moment that he tried to help her to her feet?

I generally have a dim view of these situations. I dont mind the officers pushing her so much. She was trying to get in their business. But pepper spraying the guy that helps her to her feet? Why?
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:23p, 1/26/26
Reply Quote
2
D. C. Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Porteroso • 1:32p, 1/26/26
Porteroso said:
D. C. Bear said:
Porteroso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Oldbear83 said:
It's important to consider all relevant elements of these incidents.

Both started with foolish individuals being told by radical groups they should interfere in a live police action.


That has no relevance at all. You don't kill someone then start going back in time to find some sort of justification. You only kill them in the moment you determine it is necessary to preserve your safety or the safety of someone else.

This guy, on the ground, unarmed, was no threat. Maybe the shooter thought he was armed, sure. But in fact, he was not. It is an error by law enforcement any way you look at it.

Is it legal to interfere with law enforcement?

Do you think law enforcement should shoot unarmed trespassers?

How did he interfere? He was not reprimanded, did not disobey orders i know of, was not at a police scene... Is talking to law enforcement interfering? Does he have the right to have his phone out of his pocket? Is it legal to help a lady up off the ground?

Let's be polite and play the game of I will answer your questions if you answer mine.

I answered the first. He did not interfere. The second must have come from a bad AI prompt. You go.


Are you quite sure that he didn't interfere? What was happening in the lead up to this disaster? In a general sense he was certainly interfering, and that was the purpose of the people who were there specifically to confront law enforcement officers. This is different from the immediate incident, but if I walk up on a cop who was interacting with another member of the public and started to insert myself into that situation, might that not constitute interfering?

Actually you dont know that he was there to interfere, but given him recording everything he clearly was observing.

Now I am not sure if pushing a lady to the ground is the same as arresting her, but if it is, if those words were uttered, then yes he was interfering. But I don't believe she was being arrested simply because she was merely assaulted, then left there on the ground for a bit. When they arrest these ladies, they normally have 3 or 4 guys piling onto them.

Do you know if she was under arrest at the moment that he tried to help her to her feet?

I generally have a dim view of these situations. I dont mind the officers pushing her so much. She was trying to get in their business. But pepper spraying the guy that helps her to her feet? Why?


Based on what his family has said, yes, in a general sense he was there to interfere with law enforcement. It is the purpose and intent of these roving mobs is to interfere with law enforcement. Let us not pretend otherwise. If we don't know what "words were uttered," it seems premature for you to conclude that he was clearly not interfering. I suppose you'd need to ask the person who did the pepper spraying as to why he or she did that. That's why there are investigations. It would be beneficial if everyone would wait for facts instead of trying to frame a predetermined narrative.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:07p, 1/26/26
Reply Quote
3
Harrison Bergeron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Porteroso • 2:17p, 1/26/26
Porteroso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Oldbear83 said:
It's important to consider all relevant elements of these incidents.

Both started with foolish individuals being told by radical groups they should interfere in a live police action.


That has no relevance at all. You don't kill someone then start going back in time to find some sort of justification. You only kill them in the moment you determine it is necessary to preserve your safety or the safety of someone else.

This guy, on the ground, unarmed, was no threat. Maybe the shooter thought he was armed, sure. But in fact, he was not. It is an error by law enforcement any way you look at it.

Is it legal to interfere with law enforcement?

Do you think law enforcement should shoot unarmed trespassers?

How did he interfere? He was not reprimanded, did not disobey orders i know of, was not at a police scene... Is talking to law enforcement interfering? Does he have the right to have his phone out of his pocket? Is it legal to help a lady up off the ground?

Let's be polite and play the game of I will answer your questions if you answer mine.

I answered the first. He did not interfere. The second must have come from a bad AI prompt. You go.

Sweetheart, reading comprehension is your friend. When you figure it out, let me know.

(HINT: I was not talking about Pretti)

Then don't reply to my post which is exactly about Pretti. Use that brain of yours.

Odd you won't answer. Or not.
I was noting you ignored the questions earlier when you were discussing Aslhi Babbitt
Reply Quote
2
Harrison Bergeron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to D. C. Bear • 2:18p, 1/26/26
D. C. Bear said:
Porteroso said:
D. C. Bear said:
Porteroso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Oldbear83 said:
It's important to consider all relevant elements of these incidents.

Both started with foolish individuals being told by radical groups they should interfere in a live police action.


That has no relevance at all. You don't kill someone then start going back in time to find some sort of justification. You only kill them in the moment you determine it is necessary to preserve your safety or the safety of someone else.

This guy, on the ground, unarmed, was no threat. Maybe the shooter thought he was armed, sure. But in fact, he was not. It is an error by law enforcement any way you look at it.

Is it legal to interfere with law enforcement?

Do you think law enforcement should shoot unarmed trespassers?

How did he interfere? He was not reprimanded, did not disobey orders i know of, was not at a police scene... Is talking to law enforcement interfering? Does he have the right to have his phone out of his pocket? Is it legal to help a lady up off the ground?

Let's be polite and play the game of I will answer your questions if you answer mine.

I answered the first. He did not interfere. The second must have come from a bad AI prompt. You go.


Are you quite sure that he didn't interfere? What was happening in the lead up to this disaster? In a general sense he was certainly interfering, and that was the purpose of the people who were there specifically to confront law enforcement officers. This is different from the immediate incident, but if I walk up on a cop who was interacting with another member of the public and started to insert myself into that situation, might that not constitute interfering?

Actually you dont know that he was there to interfere, but given him recording everything he clearly was observing.

Now I am not sure if pushing a lady to the ground is the same as arresting her, but if it is, if those words were uttered, then yes he was interfering. But I don't believe she was being arrested simply because she was merely assaulted, then left there on the ground for a bit. When they arrest these ladies, they normally have 3 or 4 guys piling onto them.

Do you know if she was under arrest at the moment that he tried to help her to her feet?

I generally have a dim view of these situations. I dont mind the officers pushing her so much. She was trying to get in their business. But pepper spraying the guy that helps her to her feet? Why?


Based on what his family has said, yes, in a general sense he was there to interfere with law enforcement. It is the purpose and intent of these roving mobs is to interfere with law enforcement. Let us not pretend otherwise. If we don't know what "words were uttered," it seems premature for you to conclude that he was clearly not interfering. I suppose you'd need to ask the person who did the pepper spraying as to why he or she did that. That's why there are investigations. It would be beneficial if everyone would wait for facts instead of trying to frame a predetermined narrative.

Some people are too busy eating boogers & glue to form a rational thought.
Reply Quote
2
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:19p, 1/26/26
Reply Quote
2
303Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 3:00p, 1/26/26
boognish_bear said:

Clearly has TDS.
Reply Quote
2
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:20p, 1/26/26
Reply Quote
2
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:29p, 1/26/26
Reply Quote
Harrison Bergeron
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:39p, 1/26/26
While the right decision politically, it definitely encourages the proliferation of armed militias to continue to launch government insurrections.
Reply Quote
2
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:43p, 1/26/26
Reply Quote
1
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:51p, 1/26/26
Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:54p, 1/26/26
Reply Quote
1
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:13p, 1/26/26
reality check:

Reply Quote
3
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 303Bear • 4:14p, 1/26/26
303Bear said:
boognish_bear said:

Clearly has TDS.


This is the guy who turned Texas into little India... Abbott made "Pakistan Day" into a state recognized holiday...
Reply Quote
1 edit
303Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 4:17p, 1/26/26
boognish_bear said:

File that in the "no f'ing **** drawer"

Reply Quote
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 4:18p, 1/26/26
boognish_bear said:
That Truth Social post from Trump is good to see. That should help to turn the temperature down.



This white ***** is reading things into his post.... but she brings up a interesting point. Trump needs to stand behind the officer involved in this shooting. If they sacrifice another officer to the communists to cleanse themselves of any blame then I and many others will sit out the midterms. Republicans need to support our ICE officers the way the left supports their domestic terrorists and antifa foot soldiers.
Reply Quote
2
Porteroso
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to D. C. Bear • 4:21p, 1/26/26
D. C. Bear said:
Porteroso said:
D. C. Bear said:
Porteroso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Porteroso said:
Oldbear83 said:
It's important to consider all relevant elements of these incidents.

Both started with foolish individuals being told by radical groups they should interfere in a live police action.


That has no relevance at all. You don't kill someone then start going back in time to find some sort of justification. You only kill them in the moment you determine it is necessary to preserve your safety or the safety of someone else.

This guy, on the ground, unarmed, was no threat. Maybe the shooter thought he was armed, sure. But in fact, he was not. It is an error by law enforcement any way you look at it.

Is it legal to interfere with law enforcement?

Do you think law enforcement should shoot unarmed trespassers?

How did he interfere? He was not reprimanded, did not disobey orders i know of, was not at a police scene... Is talking to law enforcement interfering? Does he have the right to have his phone out of his pocket? Is it legal to help a lady up off the ground?

Let's be polite and play the game of I will answer your questions if you answer mine.

I answered the first. He did not interfere. The second must have come from a bad AI prompt. You go.


Are you quite sure that he didn't interfere? What was happening in the lead up to this disaster? In a general sense he was certainly interfering, and that was the purpose of the people who were there specifically to confront law enforcement officers. This is different from the immediate incident, but if I walk up on a cop who was interacting with another member of the public and started to insert myself into that situation, might that not constitute interfering?

Actually you dont know that he was there to interfere, but given him recording everything he clearly was observing.

Now I am not sure if pushing a lady to the ground is the same as arresting her, but if it is, if those words were uttered, then yes he was interfering. But I don't believe she was being arrested simply because she was merely assaulted, then left there on the ground for a bit. When they arrest these ladies, they normally have 3 or 4 guys piling onto them.

Do you know if she was under arrest at the moment that he tried to help her to her feet?

I generally have a dim view of these situations. I dont mind the officers pushing her so much. She was trying to get in their business. But pepper spraying the guy that helps her to her feet? Why?


Based on what his family has said, yes, in a general sense he was there to interfere with law enforcement. It is the purpose and intent of these roving mobs is to interfere with law enforcement. Let us not pretend otherwise. If we don't know what "words were uttered," it seems premature for you to conclude that he was clearly not interfering. I suppose you'd need to ask the person who did the pepper spraying as to why he or she did that. That's why there are investigations. It would be beneficial if everyone would wait for facts instead of trying to frame a predetermined narrative.

I agree we need some clarity on a few key points, but what anyone can clearly see from the video, is that not only was he unarmed, but posed no threat at any time to these officers.

Even if helping a lady up off the ground constitutes interference, it is simply not a death sentence.
Reply Quote
2
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 4:25p, 1/26/26
boognish_bear said:


Trey Goudy looks like he joined the lollipop guild and got runover by a gay pride parade.

There is zero testosterone in that "man"
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.