WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

The news keeps talking about how he was a "legal" gun owner.

What the fuck? EVERYONE knows the situation in MN is volatile. You can't approach the feds with a gun in your hand and be a dick wad. FAFO

The news keeps talking about how he was a "legal" gun owner. What the fuck? EVERYONE knows the situation in MN is volatile. You can't approach the feds with a gun in your hand and be a dick wad. FAFO
[–] 5 pts

Apparently he pulled the gun on the agents. It doesn't matter if you are a legal owner if you decide to try to shoot officers trying to detain you.

[–] 3 pts

I haven't seen the actual video yet, ppl are saying that an agent had disarmed him and other agents shot him afterwards. It's so easy to watch a video 10 times and in slow motion and make a good call. People don't understand the heat of the moment, split second decision making. Even if he was disarmed, if he was still fighting he still got what he came for. FAFO.

[–] 2 pts

Yeah, don't take guns to a "protest". Shit like this won't happen to you. Also stay out of the fucking road and don't fight with cops.

[–] 3 pts

You forgot: Don't drive your car into them.

[–] 1 pt

And even if he was disarmed, he created the situation where there was legitimate cause for fear or caution of him having another. A man with a gun can just as easily have two. His only option at that point was to go completely limp and lay without any motion…not be the guy carrying weapons and fighting with police.

Fucking idiot.

[–] 1 pt

He had a Sig P320. Speculation is an ICE agent disarmed him and was carrying it away from the scuffle and it went off. It went off is specific since the P320 has a history of just firing.

[–] 0 pt

Lol. Is that really what they are saying? That's hilarious.

[–] 2 pts (edited )

Even if he didn't draw his weapon, if you're fighting with police and they find that you have a gun on you, you're likely to get shot and that will be justifiable every day if the week.

The shooter needs to show that he had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. That fear does not need to be correct, only reasonable (I.e. not speculative). A prosecutor would need to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that lawful grounds for the use of deadly force did not exist.

The above, however, assumes an unbiased jury and judge, which is practically impossible in Minnesota currently (see Chauvin and fentanyl Flloyd). It won't come down to a Minnesota court though, due to federal law enforcement involvement. The Feds will tell MN to fuck right of.

[–] 2 pts

If this is going to be a daily thing, there might as well be a Minnesota sub (which there isn't).

[–] 4 pts

Yea, fuck those guys, they don't get a sub!!