aggiehawg said:oh no said:Gaeilge said:🚨#BREAKING: According to The Daily Beast, ICE federal agents had visited a Mexican restaurant as regular customers before later returning to detain three members of the restaurant’s staff
— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) January 16, 2026
That's because there are not a lot of the amigos up there. Surprised they could even find a Mexican restaurant.
Rapier108 said:
Police will fire until the threat is stopped. If one shot does it, great. If it takes 500, so be it. It also doesn't matter if the first shot is a kill shot, the last shot, or one in between.
The agent had a second to make a decision, and wasn't going to count his shots just to make you or anyone else feel better.
agsalaska said:captkirk said:Last night during a riot in Minneapolis, a U.S. citizen was arrested for assaulting officers while carrying a firearm.Â
— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) January 15, 2026
Â
The individual showed up to the protest with a gun and a box of ammunition in a bag. The individual threatened violence against law enforcement officers while… pic.twitter.com/dwXU5CzoOT
Im trying to figure out the ammo. That gun is a .45/410 and thats some kind of boutique load but I do not recognize it. Thought it was an Underwood but it's not.
FobTies said:1981 Monte Carlo said:
I would extend a little bit of grace and benefit of the doubt to any human in that situation who may take one extra shot in an event like that.
Yeah, thats where a jury comes in to determine if the "extra shot" fits the letter of the law.
I just try to be consistent. The Mesa PD cop went too far shooting Daniel Shaver claiming he was "reaching for a gun". You probably didnt extend grace with those shots. Many also didnt extend grace to Byrd for shooting Babbot.
So thats my point. The left being totally irrational and incapable of objective reason is irrelevant.
Quote:
Should watch Diner's Drive In's and Dives, I swear Guy Fieri shows you the hotspots up there.
Yup. Good shoot.txags92 said:FobTies said:1981 Monte Carlo said:
I would extend a little bit of grace and benefit of the doubt to any human in that situation who may take one extra shot in an event like that.
Yeah, thats where a jury comes in to determine if the "extra shot" fits the letter of the law.
I just try to be consistent. The Mesa PD cop went too far shooting Daniel Shaver claiming he was "reaching for a gun". You probably didnt extend grace with those shots. Many also didnt extend grace to Byrd for shooting Babbot.
So thats my point. The left being totally irrational and incapable of objective reason is irrelevant.
IIRC the SCOTUS has ruled previously that if the first shot a cop takes to neutralize a threat is justified, then subsequent shots are automatically deemed justified as long as the threat has not already been neutralized or otherwise stopped. So, if his first shot to stop a dangerous person using her car as a weapon to attack him was justified, as long as she was still moving forward and not stopped, his subsequent shots are justified, whether they came through the windshield or the side window.
fredfredunderscorefred said:Squadron7 said:Raiderjay said:
Thank God idiot Crockett chimed in......🚨 JUST IN: Rep. Jasmine Crockett faces mass calls to RESIGN after she just called ICE "SLAVE PATROLS"
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 16, 2026
"Y'all never let the fact that I am black go! So, I'm gon' be clear 'bout one thing, I know my good black history! This looks like modern-day SLAVE PATROLS!"
RESIGN. pic.twitter.com/Tprr8nNX6s
She possesses.....other ways of knowing.
Well they are the modern day slaves for democrats. Still the plantation party, and they don't like anybody messing with their slaves. Dems are ok encouraging horrific treks for people so they can have their cheap labor, but it's pretty gross.
aggiehawg said:Quote:
Should watch Diner's Drive In's and Dives, I swear Guy Fieri shows you the hotspots up there.
We can't get decent Tex Mex in Arkansas. Not remotely enticed by a Minneapolis version. (And I do watch his show. Watch all of his shows. I'm a foodie.)
aggiehawg said:Quote:
Should watch Diner's Drive In's and Dives, I swear Guy Fieri shows you the hotspots up there.
We can't get decent Tex Mex in Arkansas. Not remotely enticed by a Minneapolis version. (And I do watch his show. Watch all of his shows. I'm a foodie.)
FobTies said:Rapier108 said:
Police will fire until the threat is stopped. If one shot does it, great. If it takes 500, so be it. It also doesn't matter if the first shot is a kill shot, the last shot, or one in between.
The agent had a second to make a decision, and wasn't going to count his shots just to make you or anyone else feel better.
Every other officer who has made a legit mistake firing their weapon, could claim "split second decision", and that should certainly be factored in.
This topic isnt going away, so might as well acknowledge the side window shot could be a major issue for his defense arguement.
txags92 said:
IIRC the SCOTUS has ruled previously that if the first shot a cop takes to neutralize a threat is justified, then subsequent shots are automatically deemed justified as long as the threat has not already been neutralized or otherwise stopped.
FobTies said:txags92 said:
IIRC the SCOTUS has ruled previously that if the first shot a cop takes to neutralize a threat is justified, then subsequent shots are automatically deemed justified as long as the threat has not already been neutralized or otherwise stopped.
I think the arguement would be that once the officer was on the side of a car moving the opposite direction, the threat had stopped.
Of course, we see mag dumps all the time when suspects are armed or are assaulting a cop....fire away. Or firing over the hood like the ICE agents initial shots.
The only time I have ever seen a cop fire at a fleeing car is if they had already been shot at. Does anyone have another example?
Im not excusing the crazy lib. But if the 3rd shot killed her, I dont think its as cut and dry as yall think.
93MarineHorn said:FobTies said:Rapier108 said:
Police will fire until the threat is stopped. If one shot does it, great. If it takes 500, so be it. It also doesn't matter if the first shot is a kill shot, the last shot, or one in between.
The agent had a second to make a decision, and wasn't going to count his shots just to make you or anyone else feel better.
Every other officer who has made a legit mistake firing their weapon, could claim "split second decision", and that should certainly be factored in.
This topic isnt going away, so might as well acknowledge the side window shot could be a major issue for his defense arguement.
It's not going a way because you're too obtuse to let it go.
FobTies said:txags92 said:
IIRC the SCOTUS has ruled previously that if the first shot a cop takes to neutralize a threat is justified, then subsequent shots are automatically deemed justified as long as the threat has not already been neutralized or otherwise stopped.
The only time I have ever seen a cop fire at a fleeing car is if they had already been shot at. Does anyone have another example?
samurai_science said:FobTies said:txags92 said:
IIRC the SCOTUS has ruled previously that if the first shot a cop takes to neutralize a threat is justified, then subsequent shots are automatically deemed justified as long as the threat has not already been neutralized or otherwise stopped.
The only time I have ever seen a cop fire at a fleeing car is if they had already been shot at. Does anyone have another example?
There are many examples, search youtube for body cam footage. Even examples where people "drove away" then backed up or turned around and came back at officers. Or drove at other officers while they "drove away". Its easy to find examples.
FobTies said:Rapier108 said:
Police will fire until the threat is stopped. If one shot does it, great. If it takes 500, so be it. It also doesn't matter if the first shot is a kill shot, the last shot, or one in between.
The agent had a second to make a decision, and wasn't going to count his shots just to make you or anyone else feel better.
Every other officer who has made a legit mistake firing their weapon, could claim "split second decision", and that should certainly be factored in.
This topic isnt going away, so might as well acknowledge the side window shot could be a major issue for his defense arguement.
samurai_science said:
There are many examples, search youtube for body cam footage. Even examples where people "drove away" then backed up or turned around and came back at officers. Or drove at other officers while they "drove away". Its easy to find examples.
Yeah she was already acting irrationally. After being shot but not killed who knows if she would continue acting irrationally? Very sad but justified shooting.samurai_science said:FobTies said:txags92 said:
IIRC the SCOTUS has ruled previously that if the first shot a cop takes to neutralize a threat is justified, then subsequent shots are automatically deemed justified as long as the threat has not already been neutralized or otherwise stopped.
The only time I have ever seen a cop fire at a fleeing car is if they had already been shot at. Does anyone have another example?
There are many examples, search youtube for body cam footage. Even examples where people "drove away" then backed up or turned around and came back at officers. Or drove at other officers while they "drove away". It's easy to find examples.
Emerging: 2 fires seen near Willow River, Minnesota amid reports of possible gas pipeline explosion. pic.twitter.com/GfNYfrNgnm
— AZ Intel (@AZ_Intel_) January 16, 2026
Quote:
Nope. He gets to shoot until the threat is ended
Who?mikejones! said:Emerging: 2 fires seen near Willow River, Minnesota amid reports of possible gas pipeline explosion. pic.twitter.com/GfNYfrNgnm
— AZ Intel (@AZ_Intel_) January 16, 2026
txags92 said:FobTies said:txags92 said:
IIRC the SCOTUS has ruled previously that if the first shot a cop takes to neutralize a threat is justified, then subsequent shots are automatically deemed justified as long as the threat has not already been neutralized or otherwise stopped.
I think the arguement would be that once the officer was on the side of a car moving the opposite direction, the threat had stopped.
Of course, we see mag dumps all the time when suspects are armed or are assaulting a cop....fire away. Or firing over the hood like the ICE agents initial shots.
The only time I have ever seen a cop fire at a fleeing car is if they had already been shot at. Does anyone have another example?
Im not excusing the crazy lib. But if the 3rd shot killed her, I dont think its as cut and dry as yall think.
If she is willing to attack him with her car to avoid arrest, then he has no reason to suspect that she wouldn't run over anybody else who happens to be in her way as she tries to get away. There are dozens of people standing around the scene besides the ICE agent and he has no idea how many more might be in her path if she gets past him. Once he has determined she is a lethal threat and is justified to shoot to stop her, that judgement doesn't change just because she is past him if he believes she is a threat to others in the same way.
BQ78 said:
Other than making Minnesota hot, not sure this has anything to do with this thread
🚨 BREAKING: One of Minnesota’s most notorious Trantifa terrorists is rolling out to the Whipple ICE facility with a car stuffed full of umbrellas.
— Kim "Katie" USA (@KimKatieUSA) January 16, 2026
Their plan? Block pepper pellets, sprays, and shotguns.
Bring the water cannons let’s see how those umbrellas hold up. pic.twitter.com/ZWfSnOfxzt
Raiderjay said:Who?mikejones! said:Emerging: 2 fires seen near Willow River, Minnesota amid reports of possible gas pipeline explosion. pic.twitter.com/GfNYfrNgnm
— AZ Intel (@AZ_Intel_) January 16, 2026
Hmm....
oh no said:🚨 BREAKING: One of Minnesota’s most notorious Trantifa terrorists is rolling out to the Whipple ICE facility with a car stuffed full of umbrellas.
— Kim "Katie" USA (@KimKatieUSA) January 16, 2026
Their plan? Block pepper pellets, sprays, and shotguns.
Bring the water cannons let’s see how those umbrellas hold up. pic.twitter.com/ZWfSnOfxzt
Where do the anarchists get money for umbrellas? Stop the funding.
deddog said:oh no said:🚨 BREAKING: One of Minnesota’s most notorious Trantifa terrorists is rolling out to the Whipple ICE facility with a car stuffed full of umbrellas.
— Kim "Katie" USA (@KimKatieUSA) January 16, 2026
Their plan? Block pepper pellets, sprays, and shotguns.
Bring the water cannons let’s see how those umbrellas hold up. pic.twitter.com/ZWfSnOfxzt
Where do the anarchists get money for umbrellas? Stop the funding.
USAID?
Why do you think democrats everywhere (including on Texags) were whining about it?
Raiderjay said:
Thank God idiot Crockett chimed in......🚨 JUST IN: Rep. Jasmine Crockett faces mass calls to RESIGN after she just called ICE "SLAVE PATROLS"
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 16, 2026
"Y'all never let the fact that I am black go! So, I'm gon' be clear 'bout one thing, I know my good black history! This looks like modern-day SLAVE PATROLS!"
RESIGN. pic.twitter.com/Tprr8nNX6s
