Latest Minneapolis shooting

[Dashinka 26,565]

6 hours ago, speedster said:

Yeah and someone here doubled down still with the facts provided.

"Judge Schiltz wrote that ICE has likely violated more court orders this month than some agencies have violated in their entire existence."

Violating 96 court orders in just Minneapolis is certainly a feat. Might wanna change those clock hands pretty often.

Doesn't this depend on if a higher court put a stay on the lower court rulings?  It is amazing how many judges believe they are a king or queen.

 

As to clock hands what is that all about?  The doomsday clock?  If so, you do know that is a complete joke.

[speedster 100]

7 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Doesn't this depend on if a higher court put a stay on the lower court rulings?  It is amazing how many judges believe they are a king or queen.

 

Those court rulings have not been overturned nor put with a stay so hence why ICE is still violating these rulings. How are Article III judges king or queen if they're in charge of ruling on questions of federal law and the constitution? Is check and balances a bad thing now?

[Boiler 48,695]

Is this what they mean by F ICE?

 

 

[Dashinka 26,565]

I thought Democrats vow to protect children?

[Dashinka 26,565]

16 hours ago, speedster said:

 

Those court rulings have not been overturned nor put with a stay so hence why ICE is still violating these rulings. How are Article III judges king or queen if they're in charge of ruling on questions of federal law and the constitution? Is check and balances a bad thing now?

When a district judge puts in place a ruling based on their own political biases for the entire country, that sounds a lot like what a king may do.  And yes, judges do have political biases, and are not always able to separate those from their rulings.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,527]

On 1/25/2026 at 6:39 PM, S2N said:

Like I said, I think it’s incredibly stupid to take a gun with you to a protest — whether it’s a left-wing one or a right-wing one. It is legal, though. I’m not really sure your analogy holds here though as the CCH wasn’t the one who fired any shots.

 

Someone having a gun on then when they (appear to be) restrained on the ground isn’t a reason to unload 10 rounds into them, and if that’s all they can produce as reason for the shooting it’ll be an issue.

 

I think that’s my overall issue with the “well why was he there???” questions. Let’s say he was a plant or a domestic terrorist or whatever. LEOs don’t have the legal authority to shoot a restrained individual, which from all indications we’ve seen so far this guy was.  They might have the right to detain and charge, but simply resisting arrest with a concealed firearm (which is essentially what DHS is claiming happened), shouldn’t end in him getting shot.

 

Like I said, let’s have an investigation and see where it goes, but what DHS has come up with so far doesn’t inspire confidence.

 

Pumping 10 rounds into him was abhorrent. The classy thing to do would have been stop at 6