The_barBEARian said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Can anyone produce a video of the man violently resisting the police? The only thing I have seen is the man with an empty left hand and a cell phone in the right. That's murder.

Who cares if the man was armed? He has a gun license in MN which allows for him to carry a gun in public. That said, yes, under MN law, law enforcement can disarm a licensed gun carrier if they feel they need to to make the scene safe. However, they must give the gun back to the person before the person leaves the scene. So, if you can produce a video of this man getting aggressive with law enforcement while they are trying to take his weapon, I'll review the new evidence that nobody seems able to produce right now.

Who cares how many bullets he had on him? Most concealed carry people carry a back up magazine. It's in case something goes wrong with the magazine in the gun, you drop it out, reload the new one, and now you have a working gun. I carry a backup. I know some people who carry more than one. It's not illegal to have as many bullets as you want on you. As long has he was licensed, he did nothing wrong until you can prove he did.

---

I think some people are conflating he didnt deserve to
Die for what he did with he was just standing aside blowing a whistle filming with his iphone

He didnt deserve to die. Lotta good that does him and his family now.

---

I agree. He created the situation. But creating a risky situation should not be a death sentence. He did nothing thise officers could not handle without killing him.

---

Show me a single post you made saying Ashley Babbit put herself in a risky situation but she did nothing the secret service and capital police could not handle without killing her?

Or are you applying double standards bcs your antifa buddy's luck ran out?

---

There were thousands trying to breach the Capitol. Obviously law enforcement could not handle it. Are you comparing that to this situation?

---

Absolutely.

There are thousands of terrorists roaming Minneapolis right now stalking and ambushing ICE officers.

The difference is Jan 6 was spontaneous.... this is deliberate insurrection.

---

Are you this dumb? Or just pretending?

Porteroso said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Can anyone produce a video of the man violently resisting the police? The only thing I have seen is the man with an empty left hand and a cell phone in the right. That's murder.

Who cares if the man was armed? He has a gun license in MN which allows for him to carry a gun in public. That said, yes, under MN law, law enforcement can disarm a licensed gun carrier if they feel they need to to make the scene safe. However, they must give the gun back to the person before the person leaves the scene. So, if you can produce a video of this man getting aggressive with law enforcement while they are trying to take his weapon, I'll review the new evidence that nobody seems able to produce right now.

Who cares how many bullets he had on him? Most concealed carry people carry a back up magazine. It's in case something goes wrong with the magazine in the gun, you drop it out, reload the new one, and now you have a working gun. I carry a backup. I know some people who carry more than one. It's not illegal to have as many bullets as you want on you. As long has he was licensed, he did nothing wrong until you can prove he did.

---

I think some people are conflating he didnt deserve to
Die for what he did with he was just standing aside blowing a whistle filming with his iphone

He didnt deserve to die. Lotta good that does him and his family now.

---

I agree. He created the situation. But creating a risky situation should not be a death sentence. He did nothing thise officers could not handle without killing him.

---

Show me a single post you made saying Ashley Babbit put herself in a risky situation but she did nothing the secret service and capital police could not handle without killing her?

Or are you applying double standards bcs your antifa buddy's luck ran out?

---

There were thousands trying to breach the Capitol. Obviously law enforcement could not handle it. Are you comparing that to this situation?

---

Is it legal to interfere with law enforcement?

Do you think law enforcement should shoot unarmed trespassers?

Porteroso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

One was unarmed, the other had a gun.

---

Have you heard of the Constitution?

---

Yup. Not one part says you are not responsible for your actions.

Seems you missed that.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Can anyone produce a video of the man violently resisting the police? The only thing I have seen is the man with an empty left hand and a cell phone in the right. That's murder.

Who cares if the man was armed? He has a gun license in MN which allows for him to carry a gun in public. That said, yes, under MN law, law enforcement can disarm a licensed gun carrier if they feel they need to to make the scene safe. However, they must give the gun back to the person before the person leaves the scene. So, if you can produce a video of this man getting aggressive with law enforcement while they are trying to take his weapon, I'll review the new evidence that nobody seems able to produce right now.

Who cares how many bullets he had on him? Most concealed carry people carry a back up magazine. It's in case something goes wrong with the magazine in the gun, you drop it out, reload the new one, and now you have a working gun. I carry a backup. I know some people who carry more than one. It's not illegal to have as many bullets as you want on you. As long has he was licensed, he did nothing wrong until you can prove he did.

---

I think some people are conflating he didnt deserve to
Die for what he did with he was just standing aside blowing a whistle filming with his iphone

He didnt deserve to die. Lotta good that does him and his family now.

---

He created the situation. But creating a risky situation should not be a death sentence..

---

I agree that it shouldn't be…but sometimes it is and it's not a conspiracy or because of evil intent on the part of the officers

If a group of officers is facing long periods of harassment & intimidation…they become on edge (happens to all humans)…chaotic situations increase tension and inability to communicate/hear/see well in the moment (human biology..we have limited hearing and visual ability)

So then we have situation that can lead to tragedy

You are dealing with protestors in your face shouting, spitting, pushing, distracting you with noise devices…you are pulled 90 degrees fast and told to help out other officers…a man is being arrested by fellow law enforcement (you are not sure for what yet), he seems to be resisting (hard to tell), another officer yells out "gun gun gun". You think the man is now reaching for a gun at that moment and so you perceive an imminent threat to your life or other officers lives and you fire.

That is why seeking out confrontations with law enforcement is wrong.

It puts everyone at risk.

It's like driving down the highway speeding and playing chicken….something bad is eventually going to take place.

---

Totally agree. The only thing none of us know, is why he was pepper sprayed trying to help the lady. And then wrestled to the ground. You cannot just assault a guy and then retroactively call it arrest.

---

Correct you can not randomly assault a guy then shoot him. As an officer of the law.

But as a hypothetical let's take this scenario (close to what might have happened)

One officer can think reasonably (even mistakenly) that a guy he is encountering is a previous agitator that he has warned before to back off. Now he is going to spray him and arrest him for violation of lawful order and interference.

Other officers don't know what is going on…just that someone is being arrested. They are called to assist.

A third officer arrives to help and sees a gun and yells out about the weapon.

A fourth officer now sees a struggle, hears confirmation of a gun, and now sees the individual he thinks has a gun reaching behind his back toward his waist area.

A series of tragic steps that are set in motion by people looking to come into conflict with Law enforcement officers and refuse to leave them alone and let them do their jobs.

Peacefully protest away from officers and change the law if you don't like it.

Go into conflict situations with officers and tragedy can take place….in fact it guaranteed to take place over a long enough timeline of conflict

---

I agree it was a forced error, and even the scale and length of time of the protests matters. Absolutely these officers, who I respect, are on edge.

But at the same time, an unarmed man who had been wrestled to the ground was executed from behind. That needs to not keep happening.

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.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Can anyone produce a video of the man violently resisting the police? The only thing I have seen is the man with an empty left hand and a cell phone in the right. That's murder.

Who cares if the man was armed? He has a gun license in MN which allows for him to carry a gun in public. That said, yes, under MN law, law enforcement can disarm a licensed gun carrier if they feel they need to to make the scene safe. However, they must give the gun back to the person before the person leaves the scene. So, if you can produce a video of this man getting aggressive with law enforcement while they are trying to take his weapon, I'll review the new evidence that nobody seems able to produce right now.

Who cares how many bullets he had on him? Most concealed carry people carry a back up magazine. It's in case something goes wrong with the magazine in the gun, you drop it out, reload the new one, and now you have a working gun. I carry a backup. I know some people who carry more than one. It's not illegal to have as many bullets as you want on you. As long has he was licensed, he did nothing wrong until you can prove he did.

---

I think some people are conflating he didnt deserve to
Die for what he did with he was just standing aside blowing a whistle filming with his iphone

He didnt deserve to die. Lotta good that does him and his family now.

---

He created the situation. But creating a risky situation should not be a death sentence..

---

I agree that it shouldn't be…but sometimes it is and it's not a conspiracy or because of evil intent on the part of the officers

If a group of officers is facing long periods of harassment & intimidation…they become on edge (happens to all humans)…chaotic situations increase tension and inability to communicate/hear/see well in the moment (human biology..we have limited hearing and visual ability)

So then we have situation that can lead to tragedy

You are dealing with protestors in your face shouting, spitting, pushing, distracting you with noise devices…you are pulled 90 degrees fast and told to help out other officers…a man is being arrested by fellow law enforcement (you are not sure for what yet), he seems to be resisting (hard to tell), another officer yells out "gun gun gun". You think the man is now reaching for a gun at that moment and so you perceive an imminent threat to your life or other officers lives and you fire.

That is why seeking out confrontations with law enforcement is wrong.

It puts everyone at risk.

It's like driving down the highway speeding and playing chicken….something bad is eventually going to take place.

---

Totally agree. The only thing none of us know, is why he was pepper sprayed trying to help the lady. And then wrestled to the ground. You cannot just assault a guy and then retroactively call it arrest.

---

Correct you can not randomly assault a guy then shoot him. As an officer of the law.

But as a hypothetical let's take this scenario (close to what might have happened)

One officer can think reasonably (even mistakenly) that a guy he is encountering is a previous agitator that he has warned before to back off. Now he is going to spray him and arrest him for violation of lawful order and interference.

Other officers don't know what is going on…just that someone is being arrested. They are called to assist.

A third officer arrives to help and sees a gun and yells out about the weapon.

A fourth officer now sees a struggle, hears confirmation of a gun, and now sees the individual he thinks has a gun reaching behind his back toward his waist area.

A series of tragic steps that are set in motion by people looking to come into conflict with Law enforcement officers and refuse to leave them alone and let them do their jobs.

Peacefully protest away from officers and change the law if you don't like it.

Go into conflict situations with officers and tragedy can take place….in fact it guaranteed to take place over a long enough timeline of conflict

---

It's amazing the lack of empathy displayed by so many LWNJs. All of their so-called compassion and concern is dependent not on humanity but tribal affiliation.

These guys are trying to do their jobs. They are getting threatened, harassed, doxed, etc., for trying to get violent criminals and child molesters off the streets. Having 1,000 fat Karens blowing whistles at you all day every day starts to take a toll.

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.

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?

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?

It's very much relevant.

And telling that you are so desperate to avoid that fact.

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.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Deescalate in Minneapolis and reassess tactics. Whatever spin you want to apply doesn't matter. Both citizens and law enforcement agents are in danger. There are plenty of other places to target in the U.S., and many other approaches than doing show of force tactics. If you don't, it is a virtual guarantee that more of both (citizens and LE) will be harmed. Sometimes the bigger picture has to be assessed.

---

What you are recommending is standing down in the face of a communist insurrection in blue state Minnesota. You *never* stand down in the face of a communist insurrection. You go full Franco. If you don't, welcome to Russia 1917.

Yesterday these cretins tried taking over the airport.

---

This is no more an insurrection than Jan 6. Give me a f-n break.

---

I don't personally think either are insurrections in the pure sense.

But Minnesota comes closer to being true.

The Jan 6th issue was a one time mob action that was over in 4 hours. Not a sustained campaign over time with State level political support

This Minnesota event has gone on for months. Has had the support of State politicians and political elites from the top to the bottom of the State apparatus. I would not be surprised to find out some State authorities have been cooperating & coordinating these street mob actions and harassing campaigns

It's coming very close to State level insurrection against federal law and federal government authority.

---

It's far from it. Policy disagreement is not insurrection. If you believe as you do above, then Abbott incited insurrection by.usurping Federal authority, with the cooperation of state authorities, by calling in the national guard and enforcing immigration against the Federal governments direction.

---

Sending violent, armed morons out to attack federal agents is not just "policy disagreement." Good lord...

---

If ICE didn't decide to come en masse to do large scale sweeps on illegal immigrants, what would be happening here?

---

That's the False Premise Fallacy. And I think you know that so I am not going to even point it out because you already know the answer.

---

It can only be a false premise fallacy if the premise is factually untrue, which mine is not. These protests are a result of disagreements of ICE immigration policy and approach. A false premise fallacy would be me saying, the protesters died because of Trump's immigration policy, I'm not saying that.

Target stores in Minneapolis are pulling Hispanic employees off 'drive-up duty' where workers bring online orders to shoppers' cars in the parking lot.

ICE arrested two Hispanic employees in a store earlier this month who turned out to be U.S. citizens.https://t.co/KNsk7d49ml

— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) January 25, 2026

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

However, it's not disputed he's a paid, semi-professional agitator and actively and intentionally interfering with lawful operations of the government. Again, why else would he be there? If you disagree with me, what evidence do you have that he was just walking to the store and bumped into a law enforcement operation?

Bringing a gun to actively interfere with a law enforcement operation obviously speaks to his state of mind. Again, why do you think he would take a gun? What would be the other possible intentions?

I appreciate that some folks are anti-ICE and have TDS (no idea if you do or not); but just be direct vs. trying the mental gymnastics that this was just a "Maryland father" who happened upon a law enforcement action.

---

Where is the proof he is a paid agitator? Yes, it is pretty clear according to his family reports about him he is anti-Trump and anti-ICE. That doesn't make him a paid protestor. But let's say he is.

Now he is exercising his first amendment rights. He can peacefully protest. Possession of a gun does not make you an unpeaceful protestor. I carried my gun in downtown Dallas a few years ago as I walked in and out of dueling protests about the NRA convention being in town that year. While I was not protesting, the possession of a firearm by probably everyone in the pro NRA group did not make them unpeaceful protestors. Had they pulled those guns out, now we probably have a non peaceful protest. But this man did not pull out his gun. He is still a peaceful protestor in all videos I have seen.

Again, it does not speak to state of mind. Most gun carriers I know, and I know quite a few, carry their gun absolutely everywhere they go. It goes on every morning like it's a pair of socks. I don't think about putting it on. I just do. So he took his gun because that is what licensed gun carriers do everyday of their life. They carry a gun.

I'm not mental gymnasticing anything. He's there to protest. That protest is peaceful. Protected under the constitution. He is carrying a gun. Protected by the constitution. The police shoot him when he is unarmed. I don't know how that's legal. There is a straight line between every single one of those dots.

Ya'll have fun. Football is coming on.

---

You're really misrepresenting the situation. While no one has produced a pay stub, it has been demonstrated that he actively participates in organized, well funded insurrection activity.

You owe us all some basic intellectual honestly that we all know he was not just peacefully protesting. It's amazing how TDS has made something like interfering with law enforcement somehow controversial. This is exactly what are mental gymnastics - maybe you're poorly intentioned or maybe you're naive.

Yes, there is a chance the guy is a moron and thought it would be a good idea to bring a gun to interfere with law enforcement. If I was betting on it - given what we know about him - it was likely very intentional to provoke the officers and potentially be a "martyr" to radical, anti-government groups.

And I hate the Broncos and the Patriots so I am I guess going to hate watch.

---

Harassing ICE whether volunteer, paid agitator, or pissed off human does not make one an insurrectionist,

boognish_bear said:

---

Target stores in Minneapolis are pulling Hispanic employees off 'drive-up duty' where workers bring online orders to shoppers' cars in the parking lot.

ICE arrested two Hispanic employees in a store earlier this month who turned out to be U.S. citizens.https://t.co/KNsk7d49ml

— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) January 25, 2026

---

Are these "the worst of the worst"?

El Oso said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

This is like the thief on the cross argument. Surely it's possible that works out but why take that chance. Why live that close to the edge if not willing to risk it all. He made the calculation. He shouldn't have died. Yet he still dead. He could have been smarter and lived but got gaslighted. It's sad but the left never tries to tamp it down. Never.

---

Exactly what did he do wrong? He has a right to be where he was. He has a right to be there armed.

I don't understand how he could have been smarter. He did exactly what the police told him to do and then they shot him when he may not even have had possession of the gun. An article I just read said the police had taken possession of his weapon before the shooting. If that's true, there is no need to shoot an unarmed man.

This isn't about left v right. This is about a man who was killed by police while exercising his constitutional rights. Period.

---

Video i saw had him standing in the street then physically engaging proactively with federal agent no?

Fre3dombear said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

This is like the thief on the cross argument. Surely it's possible that works out but why take that chance. Why live that close to the edge if not willing to risk it all. He made the calculation. He shouldn't have died. Yet he still dead. He could have been smarter and lived but got gaslighted. It's sad but the left never tries to tamp it down. Never.

---

Exactly what did he do wrong? He has a right to be where he was. He has a right to be there armed.

I don't understand how he could have been smarter. He did exactly what the police told him to do and then they shot him when he may not even have had possession of the gun. An article I just read said the police had taken possession of his weapon before the shooting. If that's true, there is no need to shoot an unarmed man.

This isn't about left v right. This is about a man who was killed by police while exercising his constitutional rights. Period.

---

Video i saw had him standing in the street then physically engaging proactively with federal agent no?

---

Getting pepper sprayed and trying to help a woman off the ground.

Jack Bauer said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Target stores in Minneapolis are pulling Hispanic employees off 'drive-up duty' where workers bring online orders to shoppers' cars in the parking lot.

ICE arrested two Hispanic employees in a store earlier this month who turned out to be U.S. citizens.https://t.co/KNsk7d49ml

— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) January 25, 2026

---

Are these "the worst of the worst"?

---

Fear not.

Your landscapers are safe for now.

ATL Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Deescalate in Minneapolis and reassess tactics. Whatever spin you want to apply doesn't matter. Both citizens and law enforcement agents are in danger. There are plenty of other places to target in the U.S., and many other approaches than doing show of force tactics. If you don't, it is a virtual guarantee that more of both (citizens and LE) will be harmed. Sometimes the bigger picture has to be assessed.

---

What you are recommending is standing down in the face of a communist insurrection in blue state Minnesota. You *never* stand down in the face of a communist insurrection. You go full Franco. If you don't, welcome to Russia 1917.

Yesterday these cretins tried taking over the airport.

---

This is no more an insurrection than Jan 6. Give me a f-n break.

---

I don't personally think either are insurrections in the pure sense.

But Minnesota comes closer to being true.

The Jan 6th issue was a one time mob action that was over in 4 hours. Not a sustained campaign over time with State level political support

This Minnesota event has gone on for months. Has had the support of State politicians and political elites from the top to the bottom of the State apparatus. I would not be surprised to find out some State authorities have been cooperating & coordinating these street mob actions and harassing campaigns

It's coming very close to State level insurrection against federal law and federal government authority.

---

It's far from it. Policy disagreement is not insurrection. If you believe as you do above, then Abbott incited insurrection by.usurping Federal authority, with the cooperation of state authorities, by calling in the national guard and enforcing immigration against the Federal governments direction.

---

Sending violent, armed morons out to attack federal agents is not just "policy disagreement." Good lord...

---

If ICE didn't decide to come en masse to do large scale sweeps on illegal immigrants, what would be happening here?

---

That's the False Premise Fallacy. And I think you know that so I am not going to even point it out because you already know the answer.

---

It can only be a false premise fallacy if the premise is factually untrue, which mine is not. These protests are a result of disagreements of ICE immigration policy and approach. A false premise fallacy would be me saying, the protesters died because of Trump's immigration policy, I'm not saying that.

---

Incorrect. The ICE policies are a direct result of so-called "sanctuary cities" not following long-established and non-controversial protocols of turning over criminal illegal aliens. That is the only reason ICE is taking direct law enforcement action in Minneapolis.

The problem is that:
1) Minneapolis leaders care more about pedophiles than victims
2) Minneapolis leaders in conjunction with global billionaires are actively fomenting an insurrection against lawful law enforcement actions

Pre-TDS, none of this would be remotely controversial.

Jack Bauer said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Target stores in Minneapolis are pulling Hispanic employees off 'drive-up duty' where workers bring online orders to shoppers' cars in the parking lot.

ICE arrested two Hispanic employees in a store earlier this month who turned out to be U.S. citizens.https://t.co/KNsk7d49ml

— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) January 25, 2026

---

Are these "the worst of the worst"?

---

Possibly.

ATL Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

However, it's not disputed he's a paid, semi-professional agitator and actively and intentionally interfering with lawful operations of the government. Again, why else would he be there? If you disagree with me, what evidence do you have that he was just walking to the store and bumped into a law enforcement operation?

Bringing a gun to actively interfere with a law enforcement operation obviously speaks to his state of mind. Again, why do you think he would take a gun? What would be the other possible intentions?

I appreciate that some folks are anti-ICE and have TDS (no idea if you do or not); but just be direct vs. trying the mental gymnastics that this was just a "Maryland father" who happened upon a law enforcement action.

---

Where is the proof he is a paid agitator? Yes, it is pretty clear according to his family reports about him he is anti-Trump and anti-ICE. That doesn't make him a paid protestor. But let's say he is.

Now he is exercising his first amendment rights. He can peacefully protest. Possession of a gun does not make you an unpeaceful protestor. I carried my gun in downtown Dallas a few years ago as I walked in and out of dueling protests about the NRA convention being in town that year. While I was not protesting, the possession of a firearm by probably everyone in the pro NRA group did not make them unpeaceful protestors. Had they pulled those guns out, now we probably have a non peaceful protest. But this man did not pull out his gun. He is still a peaceful protestor in all videos I have seen.

Again, it does not speak to state of mind. Most gun carriers I know, and I know quite a few, carry their gun absolutely everywhere they go. It goes on every morning like it's a pair of socks. I don't think about putting it on. I just do. So he took his gun because that is what licensed gun carriers do everyday of their life. They carry a gun.

I'm not mental gymnasticing anything. He's there to protest. That protest is peaceful. Protected under the constitution. He is carrying a gun. Protected by the constitution. The police shoot him when he is unarmed. I don't know how that's legal. There is a straight line between every single one of those dots.

Ya'll have fun. Football is coming on.

---

You're really misrepresenting the situation. While no one has produced a pay stub, it has been demonstrated that he actively participates in organized, well funded insurrection activity.

You owe us all some basic intellectual honestly that we all know he was not just peacefully protesting. It's amazing how TDS has made something like interfering with law enforcement somehow controversial. This is exactly what are mental gymnastics - maybe you're poorly intentioned or maybe you're naive.

Yes, there is a chance the guy is a moron and thought it would be a good idea to bring a gun to interfere with law enforcement. If I was betting on it - given what we know about him - it was likely very intentional to provoke the officers and potentially be a "martyr" to radical, anti-government groups.

And I hate the Broncos and the Patriots so I am I guess going to hate watch.

---

Harassing ICE whether volunteer, paid agitator, or pissed off human does not make one an insurrectionist,

---

Once again, the False Premise Fallacy.

Based on common sense as well as the definition posted by TDSer earlier, actively interfering with lawful federal law enforcement absolutely is an insurrection. It is exacerbated by the fact that elected Democrat officials are at best participating and at worse leading these efforts in conjunction with global billionaires and potentially foreign actors. It is much more of an insurrection than a few senior citizens trespassing at the Capitol.

Porteroso said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Can anyone produce a video of the man violently resisting the police? The only thing I have seen is the man with an empty left hand and a cell phone in the right. That's murder.

Who cares if the man was armed? He has a gun license in MN which allows for him to carry a gun in public. That said, yes, under MN law, law enforcement can disarm a licensed gun carrier if they feel they need to to make the scene safe. However, they must give the gun back to the person before the person leaves the scene. So, if you can produce a video of this man getting aggressive with law enforcement while they are trying to take his weapon, I'll review the new evidence that nobody seems able to produce right now.

Who cares how many bullets he had on him? Most concealed carry people carry a back up magazine. It's in case something goes wrong with the magazine in the gun, you drop it out, reload the new one, and now you have a working gun. I carry a backup. I know some people who carry more than one. It's not illegal to have as many bullets as you want on you. As long has he was licensed, he did nothing wrong until you can prove he did.

---

I think some people are conflating he didnt deserve to
Die for what he did with he was just standing aside blowing a whistle filming with his iphone

He didnt deserve to die. Lotta good that does him and his family now.

---

I agree. He created the situation. But creating a risky situation should not be a death sentence. He did nothing thise officers could not handle without killing him.

---

Sadly thats just not how ot works. Have you ever been a cop carrying a weapon and have someone tackle you? He signed hisnowj death sentence

Obama and biden trying to g to flood the country with democrats sogned his death certiciate.

Anyone voting for that signed his death certificate. Wheres the outrage for every rape, murder and thievery as a result of those votes? Exactly. It doesnt exist

Mic drop

He shouldnt have died hut hard for anyone to feel sorry for him given it was a result of his actions and those that voted to enable what trump is trying to fix

Elections have consequences they say. Imagine all the people that couldnt afford rent or food etc as a result of what obama and biden did and now some are volunteering their life to perpetuate it. Strange value systems and decisions.

Jack Bauer said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Target stores in Minneapolis are pulling Hispanic employees off 'drive-up duty' where workers bring online orders to shoppers' cars in the parking lot.

ICE arrested two Hispanic employees in a store earlier this month who turned out to be U.S. citizens.https://t.co/KNsk7d49ml

— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) January 25, 2026

---

Are these "the worst of the worst"?

---

They can't even validate any violent criminal record of Jose Huerta-Chuma, the reason for the ICE activity in the first place.

NEW: Minneapolis police chief Brian O'Hara says even if an investigation proves that the shooting of Alex Pretti was justified, it doesn’t matter because people are mad.

O'Hara: Even if there is an investigation that ultimately proves that at the time of the shooting it was… pic.twitter.com/s8cGKcajyz

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 25, 2026

Redbrickbear said:

---

NEW: Minneapolis police chief Brian O'Hara says even if an investigation proves that the shooting of Alex Pretti was justified, it doesn’t matter because people are mad.

O'Hara: Even if there is an investigation that ultimately proves that at the time of the shooting it was… pic.twitter.com/s8cGKcajyz

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 25, 2026

---

When do they start calling for the lynching of anyone that voted for Trump? (some already have)

ATL Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

However, it's not disputed he's a paid, semi-professional agitator and actively and intentionally interfering with lawful operations of the government. Again, why else would he be there? If you disagree with me, what evidence do you have that he was just walking to the store and bumped into a law enforcement operation?

Bringing a gun to actively interfere with a law enforcement operation obviously speaks to his state of mind. Again, why do you think he would take a gun? What would be the other possible intentions?

I appreciate that some folks are anti-ICE and have TDS (no idea if you do or not); but just be direct vs. trying the mental gymnastics that this was just a "Maryland father" who happened upon a law enforcement action.

---

Where is the proof he is a paid agitator? Yes, it is pretty clear according to his family reports about him he is anti-Trump and anti-ICE. That doesn't make him a paid protestor. But let's say he is.

Now he is exercising his first amendment rights. He can peacefully protest. Possession of a gun does not make you an unpeaceful protestor. I carried my gun in downtown Dallas a few years ago as I walked in and out of dueling protests about the NRA convention being in town that year. While I was not protesting, the possession of a firearm by probably everyone in the pro NRA group did not make them unpeaceful protestors. Had they pulled those guns out, now we probably have a non peaceful protest. But this man did not pull out his gun. He is still a peaceful protestor in all videos I have seen.

Again, it does not speak to state of mind. Most gun carriers I know, and I know quite a few, carry their gun absolutely everywhere they go. It goes on every morning like it's a pair of socks. I don't think about putting it on. I just do. So he took his gun because that is what licensed gun carriers do everyday of their life. They carry a gun.

I'm not mental gymnasticing anything. He's there to protest. That protest is peaceful. Protected under the constitution. He is carrying a gun. Protected by the constitution. The police shoot him when he is unarmed. I don't know how that's legal. There is a straight line between every single one of those dots.

Ya'll have fun. Football is coming on.

---

You're really misrepresenting the situation. While no one has produced a pay stub, it has been demonstrated that he actively participates in organized, well funded insurrection activity.

You owe us all some basic intellectual honestly that we all know he was not just peacefully protesting. It's amazing how TDS has made something like interfering with law enforcement somehow controversial. This is exactly what are mental gymnastics - maybe you're poorly intentioned or maybe you're naive.

Yes, there is a chance the guy is a moron and thought it would be a good idea to bring a gun to interfere with law enforcement. If I was betting on it - given what we know about him - it was likely very intentional to provoke the officers and potentially be a "martyr" to radical, anti-government groups.

And I hate the Broncos and the Patriots so I am I guess going to hate watch.

---

Harassing ICE whether volunteer, paid agitator, or pissed off human does not make one an insurrectionist,

---

True. Neither did participating in a protest that turned into a riot make someone an insurrectionist. Harassing ICE, or any law enforcement officers, does put one in very serious danger and it also puts the officers in serious danger.

ATL Bear said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Target stores in Minneapolis are pulling Hispanic employees off 'drive-up duty' where workers bring online orders to shoppers' cars in the parking lot.

ICE arrested two Hispanic employees in a store earlier this month who turned out to be U.S. citizens.https://t.co/KNsk7d49ml

— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) January 25, 2026

---

Are these "the worst of the worst"?

---

They can't even validate any violent criminal record of Jose Huerta-Chuma, the reason for the ICE activity in the first place.

---

Validate ?

To whose satisfaction….yours ?

We going to play this game with each of the thousands of known felons Biden's invited to invade our country ?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

However, it's not disputed he's a paid, semi-professional agitator and actively and intentionally interfering with lawful operations of the government. Again, why else would he be there? If you disagree with me, what evidence do you have that he was just walking to the store and bumped into a law enforcement operation?

Bringing a gun to actively interfere with a law enforcement operation obviously speaks to his state of mind. Again, why do you think he would take a gun? What would be the other possible intentions?

I appreciate that some folks are anti-ICE and have TDS (no idea if you do or not); but just be direct vs. trying the mental gymnastics that this was just a "Maryland father" who happened upon a law enforcement action.

---

Where is the proof he is a paid agitator? Yes, it is pretty clear according to his family reports about him he is anti-Trump and anti-ICE. That doesn't make him a paid protestor. But let's say he is.

Now he is exercising his first amendment rights. He can peacefully protest. Possession of a gun does not make you an unpeaceful protestor. I carried my gun in downtown Dallas a few years ago as I walked in and out of dueling protests about the NRA convention being in town that year. While I was not protesting, the possession of a firearm by probably everyone in the pro NRA group did not make them unpeaceful protestors. Had they pulled those guns out, now we probably have a non peaceful protest. But this man did not pull out his gun. He is still a peaceful protestor in all videos I have seen.

Again, it does not speak to state of mind. Most gun carriers I know, and I know quite a few, carry their gun absolutely everywhere they go. It goes on every morning like it's a pair of socks. I don't think about putting it on. I just do. So he took his gun because that is what licensed gun carriers do everyday of their life. They carry a gun.

I'm not mental gymnasticing anything. He's there to protest. That protest is peaceful. Protected under the constitution. He is carrying a gun. Protected by the constitution. The police shoot him when he is unarmed. I don't know how that's legal. There is a straight line between every single one of those dots.

Ya'll have fun. Football is coming on.

---

You're really misrepresenting the situation. While no one has produced a pay stub, it has been demonstrated that he actively participates in organized, well funded insurrection activity.

You owe us all some basic intellectual honestly that we all know he was not just peacefully protesting. It's amazing how TDS has made something like interfering with law enforcement somehow controversial. This is exactly what are mental gymnastics - maybe you're poorly intentioned or maybe you're naive.

Yes, there is a chance the guy is a moron and thought it would be a good idea to bring a gun to interfere with law enforcement. If I was betting on it - given what we know about him - it was likely very intentional to provoke the officers and potentially be a "martyr" to radical, anti-government groups.

And I hate the Broncos and the Patriots so I am I guess going to hate watch.

---

Harassing ICE whether volunteer, paid agitator, or pissed off human does not make one an insurrectionist,

---

Once again, the False Premise Fallacy.

Based on common sense as well as the definition posted by TDSer earlier, actively interfering with lawful federal law enforcement absolutely is an insurrection. It is exacerbated by the fact that elected Democrat officials are at best participating and at worse leading these efforts in conjunction with global billionaires and potentially foreign actors. It is much more of an insurrection than a few senior citizens trespassing at the Capitol.

---

Texas actively resisted and didn't enforce federal gun laws they disagreed with. Even passed a law prohibiting law enforcement from enforcing anything that wasn't in state law. The NRA did protests, and taught gun merchants and citizens how to get around federal law. It went on for years, and may still be going on, That isn't an insurrection. I'm tired of every side using this classification because they disagree with their stance. Civil disobedience, even if violent at times, isn't insurrection. Full stop, All it's being used for is to wield power over citizens, make them enemies of the state, and allow for special authority to be granted to the executive branch. This is the exact tactics used to make white men the biggest domestic terrorists by the left. How about we stop giving in to this insanity?

Fre3dombear said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

This is like the thief on the cross argument. Surely it's possible that works out but why take that chance. Why live that close to the edge if not willing to risk it all. He made the calculation. He shouldn't have died. Yet he still dead. He could have been smarter and lived but got gaslighted. It's sad but the left never tries to tamp it down. Never.

---

Exactly what did he do wrong? He has a right to be where he was. He has a right to be there armed.

I don't understand how he could have been smarter. He did exactly what the police told him to do and then they shot him when he may not even have had possession of the gun. An article I just read said the police had taken possession of his weapon before the shooting. If that's true, there is no need to shoot an unarmed man.

This isn't about left v right. This is about a man who was killed by police while exercising his constitutional rights. Period.

---

Video i saw had him standing in the street then physically engaging proactively with federal agent no?

---

No. they herded him to the sidewalk, then shoved a woman to the ground. He stepped in between her and the agent, said "it's okay," and tried to help her up. Then they pepper sprayed and tackled him.

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

However, it's not disputed he's a paid, semi-professional agitator and actively and intentionally interfering with lawful operations of the government. Again, why else would he be there? If you disagree with me, what evidence do you have that he was just walking to the store and bumped into a law enforcement operation?

Bringing a gun to actively interfere with a law enforcement operation obviously speaks to his state of mind. Again, why do you think he would take a gun? What would be the other possible intentions?

I appreciate that some folks are anti-ICE and have TDS (no idea if you do or not); but just be direct vs. trying the mental gymnastics that this was just a "Maryland father" who happened upon a law enforcement action.

---

Where is the proof he is a paid agitator? Yes, it is pretty clear according to his family reports about him he is anti-Trump and anti-ICE. That doesn't make him a paid protestor. But let's say he is.

Now he is exercising his first amendment rights. He can peacefully protest. Possession of a gun does not make you an unpeaceful protestor. I carried my gun in downtown Dallas a few years ago as I walked in and out of dueling protests about the NRA convention being in town that year. While I was not protesting, the possession of a firearm by probably everyone in the pro NRA group did not make them unpeaceful protestors. Had they pulled those guns out, now we probably have a non peaceful protest. But this man did not pull out his gun. He is still a peaceful protestor in all videos I have seen.

Again, it does not speak to state of mind. Most gun carriers I know, and I know quite a few, carry their gun absolutely everywhere they go. It goes on every morning like it's a pair of socks. I don't think about putting it on. I just do. So he took his gun because that is what licensed gun carriers do everyday of their life. They carry a gun.

I'm not mental gymnasticing anything. He's there to protest. That protest is peaceful. Protected under the constitution. He is carrying a gun. Protected by the constitution. The police shoot him when he is unarmed. I don't know how that's legal. There is a straight line between every single one of those dots.

Ya'll have fun. Football is coming on.

---

You're really misrepresenting the situation. While no one has produced a pay stub, it has been demonstrated that he actively participates in organized, well funded insurrection activity.

You owe us all some basic intellectual honestly that we all know he was not just peacefully protesting. It's amazing how TDS has made something like interfering with law enforcement somehow controversial. This is exactly what are mental gymnastics - maybe you're poorly intentioned or maybe you're naive.

Yes, there is a chance the guy is a moron and thought it would be a good idea to bring a gun to interfere with law enforcement. If I was betting on it - given what we know about him - it was likely very intentional to provoke the officers and potentially be a "martyr" to radical, anti-government groups.

And I hate the Broncos and the Patriots so I am I guess going to hate watch.

---

Harassing ICE whether volunteer, paid agitator, or pissed off human does not make one an insurrectionist,

---

True. Neither did participating in a protest that turned into a riot make someone an insurrectionist. Harassing ICE, or any law enforcement officers, does put one in very serious danger and it also puts the officers in serious danger.

---

I've always argued that Jan 6 wasn't an insurrection. Neither was BLM. The closest I said we got to it was the CHAZ insanity.

I'm not arguing about the shooting, justified or not, I'll wait until some time and details get clarified. All I've argued for is a de-escalation so we reduce the potential for more citizens and law enforcement getting harmed. Not to mention the more it escalates, the more difficult the job will be to do elsewhere.

KaiBear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Target stores in Minneapolis are pulling Hispanic employees off 'drive-up duty' where workers bring online orders to shoppers' cars in the parking lot.

ICE arrested two Hispanic employees in a store earlier this month who turned out to be U.S. citizens.https://t.co/KNsk7d49ml

— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) January 25, 2026

---

Are these "the worst of the worst"?

---

They can't even validate any violent criminal record of Jose Huerta-Chuma, the reason for the ICE activity in the first place.

---

Validate ?

To whose satisfaction….yours ?

We going to play this game with each of the thousands of known felons Biden's invited to invade our country ?

---

Sorry if I have an expectation of accountability for charges to reality, For what it's worth, Minnesota has no record of any felonies for this individual. It also appears he was detained and then released by immigration during Trump's first term.

ATL Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

However, it's not disputed he's a paid, semi-professional agitator and actively and intentionally interfering with lawful operations of the government. Again, why else would he be there? If you disagree with me, what evidence do you have that he was just walking to the store and bumped into a law enforcement operation?

Bringing a gun to actively interfere with a law enforcement operation obviously speaks to his state of mind. Again, why do you think he would take a gun? What would be the other possible intentions?

I appreciate that some folks are anti-ICE and have TDS (no idea if you do or not); but just be direct vs. trying the mental gymnastics that this was just a "Maryland father" who happened upon a law enforcement action.

---

Where is the proof he is a paid agitator? Yes, it is pretty clear according to his family reports about him he is anti-Trump and anti-ICE. That doesn't make him a paid protestor. But let's say he is.

Now he is exercising his first amendment rights. He can peacefully protest. Possession of a gun does not make you an unpeaceful protestor. I carried my gun in downtown Dallas a few years ago as I walked in and out of dueling protests about the NRA convention being in town that year. While I was not protesting, the possession of a firearm by probably everyone in the pro NRA group did not make them unpeaceful protestors. Had they pulled those guns out, now we probably have a non peaceful protest. But this man did not pull out his gun. He is still a peaceful protestor in all videos I have seen.

Again, it does not speak to state of mind. Most gun carriers I know, and I know quite a few, carry their gun absolutely everywhere they go. It goes on every morning like it's a pair of socks. I don't think about putting it on. I just do. So he took his gun because that is what licensed gun carriers do everyday of their life. They carry a gun.

I'm not mental gymnasticing anything. He's there to protest. That protest is peaceful. Protected under the constitution. He is carrying a gun. Protected by the constitution. The police shoot him when he is unarmed. I don't know how that's legal. There is a straight line between every single one of those dots.

Ya'll have fun. Football is coming on.

---

You're really misrepresenting the situation. While no one has produced a pay stub, it has been demonstrated that he actively participates in organized, well funded insurrection activity.

You owe us all some basic intellectual honestly that we all know he was not just peacefully protesting. It's amazing how TDS has made something like interfering with law enforcement somehow controversial. This is exactly what are mental gymnastics - maybe you're poorly intentioned or maybe you're naive.

Yes, there is a chance the guy is a moron and thought it would be a good idea to bring a gun to interfere with law enforcement. If I was betting on it - given what we know about him - it was likely very intentional to provoke the officers and potentially be a "martyr" to radical, anti-government groups.

And I hate the Broncos and the Patriots so I am I guess going to hate watch.

---

Harassing ICE whether volunteer, paid agitator, or pissed off human does not make one an insurrectionist,

---

Once again, the False Premise Fallacy.

Based on common sense as well as the definition posted by TDSer earlier, actively interfering with lawful federal law enforcement absolutely is an insurrection. It is exacerbated by the fact that elected Democrat officials are at best participating and at worse leading these efforts in conjunction with global billionaires and potentially foreign actors. It is much more of an insurrection than a few senior citizens trespassing at the Capitol.

---

Texas actively resisted and didn't enforce federal gun laws they disagreed with. Even passed a law prohibiting law enforcement from enforcing anything that wasn't in state law. The NRA did protests, and taught gun merchants and citizens how to get around federal law. It went on for years, and may still be going on, That isn't an insurrection. I'm tired of every side using this classification because they disagree with their stance. Civil disobedience, even if violent at times, isn't insurrection. Full stop, All it's being used for is to wield power over citizens, make them enemies of the state, and allow for special authority to be granted to the executive branch. This is the exact tactics used to make white men the biggest domestic terrorists by the left. How about we stop giving in to this insanity?

---

Three separate things:

1. I do not know about what Texas did, but it is not germane to what is happening in Minnesota

2. Again with the False Premise Fallacy - what is happening in Minneapolis is not simple "civil disobedience" but actively interfering with federal law enforcement. It is intentional and organized and the single cause of the citizens being killed.

Maybe an example is helpful ... all of these things are on a spectrum. One one end is not reporting illegal aliens to ICE. Moving further is using the "ICE Alert" APP, warning illegals about ICE activities, or harboring illegal immigrants. This is well past all of those and physically interfering with lawful law enforcement. Right or wrong, all of this power is currently invested in the executive branch; if one does not like that, the answer is to change the laws not actively oppose lawful government action.

3. Regarding insurrection, we are playing by the rules created by the LWNJs. I can agree with you that it practically should not be really considered an insurrection as we would think about it if you can agree it is much more of an insurrection than January Sixth. This is organized, funded opposition to a democratically elected government carrying out lawful law enforcement by overseas governments and billionaires.

Fre3dombear said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

This is like the thief on the cross argument. Surely it's possible that works out but why take that chance. Why live that close to the edge if not willing to risk it all. He made the calculation. He shouldn't have died. Yet he still dead. He could have been smarter and lived but got gaslighted. It's sad but the left never tries to tamp it down. Never.

---

Exactly what did he do wrong? He has a right to be where he was. He has a right to be there armed.

I don't understand how he could have been smarter. He did exactly what the police told him to do and then they shot him when he may not even have had possession of the gun. An article I just read said the police had taken possession of his weapon before the shooting. If that's true, there is no need to shoot an unarmed man.

This isn't about left v right. This is about a man who was killed by police while exercising his constitutional rights. Period.

---

Video i saw had him standing in the street then physically engaging proactively with federal agent no?

---

What video did you watch? There are several. The ones I have seen show him crossing the street. They show him helping a woman who an ICE agent shoved to the ground. They then show that agent pepper spray him. They then show him being tackled. ICE engaged him. He did not engage ICE.

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

However, it's not disputed he's a paid, semi-professional agitator and actively and intentionally interfering with lawful operations of the government. Again, why else would he be there? If you disagree with me, what evidence do you have that he was just walking to the store and bumped into a law enforcement operation?

Bringing a gun to actively interfere with a law enforcement operation obviously speaks to his state of mind. Again, why do you think he would take a gun? What would be the other possible intentions?

I appreciate that some folks are anti-ICE and have TDS (no idea if you do or not); but just be direct vs. trying the mental gymnastics that this was just a "Maryland father" who happened upon a law enforcement action.

---

Where is the proof he is a paid agitator? Yes, it is pretty clear according to his family reports about him he is anti-Trump and anti-ICE. That doesn't make him a paid protestor. But let's say he is.

Now he is exercising his first amendment rights. He can peacefully protest. Possession of a gun does not make you an unpeaceful protestor. I carried my gun in downtown Dallas a few years ago as I walked in and out of dueling protests about the NRA convention being in town that year. While I was not protesting, the possession of a firearm by probably everyone in the pro NRA group did not make them unpeaceful protestors. Had they pulled those guns out, now we probably have a non peaceful protest. But this man did not pull out his gun. He is still a peaceful protestor in all videos I have seen.

Again, it does not speak to state of mind. Most gun carriers I know, and I know quite a few, carry their gun absolutely everywhere they go. It goes on every morning like it's a pair of socks. I don't think about putting it on. I just do. So he took his gun because that is what licensed gun carriers do everyday of their life. They carry a gun.

I'm not mental gymnasticing anything. He's there to protest. That protest is peaceful. Protected under the constitution. He is carrying a gun. Protected by the constitution. The police shoot him when he is unarmed. I don't know how that's legal. There is a straight line between every single one of those dots.

Ya'll have fun. Football is coming on.

---

You're really misrepresenting the situation. While no one has produced a pay stub, it has been demonstrated that he actively participates in organized, well funded insurrection activity.

You owe us all some basic intellectual honestly that we all know he was not just peacefully protesting. It's amazing how TDS has made something like interfering with law enforcement somehow controversial. This is exactly what are mental gymnastics - maybe you're poorly intentioned or maybe you're naive.

Yes, there is a chance the guy is a moron and thought it would be a good idea to bring a gun to interfere with law enforcement. If I was betting on it - given what we know about him - it was likely very intentional to provoke the officers and potentially be a "martyr" to radical, anti-government groups.

And I hate the Broncos and the Patriots so I am I guess going to hate watch.

---

Harassing ICE whether volunteer, paid agitator, or pissed off human does not make one an insurrectionist,

---

True. Neither did participating in a protest that turned into a riot make someone an insurrectionist. Harassing ICE, or any law enforcement officers, does put one in very serious danger and it also puts the officers in serious danger.

---

I've always argued that Jan 6 wasn't an insurrection. Neither was BLM. The closest I said we got to it was the CHAZ insanity.

I'm not arguing about the shooting, justified or not, I'll wait until some time and details get clarified. All I've argued for is a de-escalation so we reduce the potential for more citizens and law enforcement getting harmed. Not to mention the more it escalates, the more difficult the job will be to do elsewhere.

---

I agree with you. But all of the escalation is coming only from one side.

ICE is doing nothing different than it has for years. For decades ICE has focused on removing child molesters and violent criminals from American communities.

The difference is that global billionaires, foreign governments, and Minnesota elected officials are actively spreading disinformation and organized opposition to lawful law enforcement. That is the sole source of the escalation and related violence.

Be an anti-ICE activist, get your rent paid and all your needs met. pic.twitter.com/G9YMgXm3Uw

— DataRepublican (small r) (@DataRepublican) January 25, 2026

And maybe get shot in the face after you attack law enforcement physically. Crazy trade off risk reward analysis

Sad anyone got hurt