1 hour ago, JBChiangRai said:

He is trying to increase divisions, he wants rioting, civil war, so he can suspend elections.

If you had of said this about the Democrats I would have given your post an agree emoji.

6 hours ago, Real Name Hidden said:

The responsible thing to do would be to leave until things cool down.

They should relieve the ICE shooter of his duties, the populace, stay home, looks like shoot to kill is in operation....☹️

Good. I voted for this.

What rabble-rousing leftist terrorists want is flat out irrelevant. Actually their opposition is precisely why we need more agents in Minnesota (and everywhere else).

I want to see the feds get more aggressive with rioters and criminals, while ICE rounds up and deports Every 👏🏼 Single 👏🏼 Illegal. Every last one of them!

7 minutes ago, tai4de2 said:

Good. I voted for this.

What rabble-rousing leftist terrorists want is flat out irrelevant. Actually their opposition is precisely why we need more agents in Minnesota (and everywhere else).

I want to see the feds get more aggressive with rioters and criminals, while ICE rounds up and deports Every 👏🏼 Single 👏🏼 Illegal. Every last one of them!

What’s wrong with you. Those goons have killed an innocent American citizen NOT illegal. You voted for killings of your own people?

2 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

The claim of "hypocrisy" in the US government (under Trump) regarding protests in the US vs. Iran is baseless and rooted in a complete misrepresentation of facts.

Trump's position on the ongoing Iran protests (which began December 28, 2025, and have resulted in over 500 deaths per rights groups like HRANA) is one of strong condemnation of the regime's violence. He has repeatedly warned Iran's leaders against killing protesters, threatened US military intervention if the crackdown escalates (e.g., stating the US is "locked and loaded" and considering "very strong options"), and expressed support for the demonstrators as a fight for "freedom."

In posts on Truth Social and public remarks, he's positioned the US as ready to "help" the protesters and end the Islamist regime, even backing potential Israeli strikes—hardly "admiration" for their methods. This aligns with broader US policy condemning Iran's actions as unlawful under international law (e.g., excessive lethal force, internet blackouts, arbitrary arrests).

In contrast, US handling of "internal protests that get violent" (e.g., recent ones over the Renee Good shooting or immigration enforcement) operates under constitutional protections for free speech and assembly (First Amendment). While riots or violence can lead to arrests and prosecutions (as seen in post-January 6, 2021, cases or 2020 BLM unrest), the US doesn't impose nationwide killings, mass detentions without trial, or total information blackouts. Investigations into police excesses (like FBI probes) ensure accountability, unlike Iran's impunity for security forces. Trump's administration has echoed this by condemning violence against protesters globally while enforcing US laws domestically—no hypocrisy, just adherence to democratic norms vs. Iran's authoritarianism.

The "similarities" you claim are nonexistent: Iran's regime has killed hundreds in weeks, targeted children, raided hospitals, and shut down the internet to hide atrocities—actions the US explicitly denounces. Dismissing those who see these vast differences as "uneducated stooges" ignores reality; it's a false equivalence that conflates lawful protest management with state-sponsored murder. If anything, the US's stance highlights a commitment to human rights abroad while protecting them at home.

Facts over inflammatory rhetoric: No admiration, no hypocrisy—just consistent opposition to tyranny.

You seem to argue there’s ‘no hypocrisy’ because the U.S. is democratic, constitutional, and operates at a different scale. On that basis:

1. Are you saying Trump never showed authoritarian tendencies — including praising/excusing strongmen like Putin, Xi, or Kim Jong-un?

2. Do constitutional protections resolve this — even after Trump floated suspending the Constitution and invoking the Insurrection Act?

3. If scale matters, what’s the cutoff? At what number of American deaths does condemnation become hypocrisy?

If the standard changes with the system, the law, or the body count, is it a principle at all?

1 hour ago, dinsdale said:

If you had of said this about the Democrats I would have given your post an agree emoji.

Have you considered addressing the substance of the poster’s argument with facts and logic, rather than whether it targets Democrats or Trump?

Let's fan the fire?

ICE, the American Gestapo. They're probably embroidering the lightning bolt patches now. Made in 'Murrica, of course!

It's a double standard by the Trump administration. It only depends WHO attacks law enforcement officers. Law is NOT enforced equally under Trump.

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

Caused by the unwanted sending in of federal agents.

It doesn't matter if they are "unwanted." Because of course Minnesota politicians don't them there. I suppose everyone has forgotten just why ICE went to Minneapolis. It was because of widespread fraud involving billions of dollars being fraudulently used primarily by Somali crime rings on fake daycare centers. Walz and Frey don't want ICE there, because they've layered in the protection for the fraudsters and criminals, many of whom are illegally in the US.

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

Have you considered addressing the substance of the poster’s argument with facts and logic, rather than whether it targets Democrats or Trump?

Logic and facts say that if blue states cooperated with federal agencies there would be no need for ICE to be there in any great numbers and if there wasn't as some are saying some $9 billion dollars of fraud in the state investigators wouldn't have to go in.

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

Logic and facts say that if blue states cooperated with federal agencies there would be no need for ICE to be there in any great numbers and if there wasn't as some are saying some $9 billion dollars of fraud in the state investigators wouldn't have to go in.

Guessing again..............

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

What’s wrong with you. Those goons have killed an innocent American citizen NOT illegal. You voted for killings of your own people?

The deliberately obtuse “bbbbbuuuttt <insert person exhibiting criminal behavior here> was just peacefully protesting! innocent Innocent INNOCENT 🦄🌈” shtick is ridiculous already.

People who mess around with deliberately provoking law enforcement are not magically shielded from potentially deadly consequences just because you happen to agree politically with their delusional and misguided positions.

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

You seem to argue there’s ‘no hypocrisy’ because the U.S. is democratic, constitutional, and operates at a different scale. On that basis:

1. Are you saying Trump never showed authoritarian tendencies — including praising/excusing strongmen like Putin, Xi, or Kim Jong-un?

2. Do constitutional protections resolve this — even after Trump floated suspending the Constitution and invoking the Insurrection Act?

3. If scale matters, what’s the cutoff? At what number of American deaths does condemnation become hypocrisy?

If the standard changes with the system, the law, or the body count, is it a principle at all?

Your rebuttal mischaracterizes my position and creates false equivalences.

I never claimed the US is perfect or that Trump lacks authoritarian tendencies—he has praised strongmen like Putin, Xi, and Kim in the past (often in diplomatic contexts).

But recent statements show frustration with them, and on Iran, Trump has condemned the regime’s violence, warned against killing protesters, and threatened intervention—not admiration.

Constitutional protections aren’t perfect, but they prevent authoritarian overreach.

Trump floated suspending the Constitution (later walked back) and considered the Insurrection Act in 2020 (but was stopped by advisors and legal checks).

These moments were dangerous, yet the system corrected itself—unlike Iran, where there are no such safeguards, and hundreds are killed systematically with impunity.

Scale isn’t about an arbitrary “cutoff” for deaths.

Hypocrisy would require the US endorsing or replicating Iran’s mass killings, blackouts, and hospital raids—which it doesn’t. US protest incidents are investigated and prosecuted under law; Iran’s are deliberate state suppression.

That’s not relativism—it’s a clear principle: defend human rights universally while upholding domestic democratic norms. The differences are systemic, not just in body count.

Facts show no double standard, only opposition to tyranny.

3 hours ago, Hummin said:

You do no see or realize it yet, how fragile a democracy is, especially when being put to a test from the outside world who starts to boycott, intervene with your politics, and also starts moving in to your neighborhood with their resources and mutual rewards.

Wait and see, it have just started, and looking outside in, you have no idea how close you are to becoming that state

Your warning about democracy's fragility is alarmist and overlooks the robust safeguards that distinguish the US from authoritarian regimes like Iran.

Democracies aren't invincible—they face threats from external interference (e.g., Russia's election meddling, China's economic coercion, or Iran's proxy wars)—but the US system has repeatedly withstood them through constitutional checks, free elections, independent judiciary, and a vigilant press.

Boycotts? We've seen them (e.g., post-2020 election disputes or international trade spats) without collapse. Political interventions? The US counters with alliances like NATO, sanctions, and diplomacy, not by descending into mass killings or blackouts.

Suggesting the US is "close to becoming" Iran ignores reality.

Iran executes protesters en masse, censors globally, and rules by theocracy without accountability.

The US investigates excesses (e.g., FBI probes into police actions), holds leaders to legal standards (e.g., Trump's impeachments), and allows peaceful dissent—even violent riots lead to prosecutions, not state-sponsored murder.

External pressures test us, but they've "just started"? Hardly—history shows resilience (Cold War, 9/11, recent cyber threats). From an "outside in" view, the US remains a beacon of democracy, far from Iran's tyranny. Wait and see? We've been waiting centuries, and the system endures because it's designed to adapt, not fracture under pressure.

Facts trump doomsaying.

He works hard at making himself likeable.

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

What’s wrong with you. Those goons have killed an innocent American citizen NOT illegal. You voted for killings of your own people?

Good, a 37-year-old US citizen, wasn't "innocent" in the context of the January 7, 2026, event:

Videos show her deliberately blocking ICE agents during a lawful raid, affiliated with anti-ICE activists, refusing commands, and accelerating her SUV, clipping Agent Jonathan Ross (causing his whiplash-like reaction) before he fired in self-defense. This wasn't murder of a random citizen—it's a tragic escalation from her obstruction, fitting federal use-of-force rules for vehicular threats!

4 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Your warning about democracy's fragility is alarmist and overlooks the robust safeguards that distinguish the US from authoritarian regimes like Iran.

Democracies aren't invincible—they face threats from external interference (e.g., Russia's election meddling, China's economic coercion, or Iran's proxy wars)—but the US system has repeatedly withstood them through constitutional checks, free elections, independent judiciary, and a vigilant press.

Boycotts? We've seen them (e.g., post-2020 election disputes or international trade spats) without collapse. Political interventions? The US counters with alliances like NATO, sanctions, and diplomacy, not by descending into mass killings or blackouts.

Suggesting the US is "close to becoming" Iran ignores reality.

Iran executes protesters en masse, censors globally, and rules by theocracy without accountability.

The US investigates excesses (e.g., FBI probes into police actions), holds leaders to legal standards (e.g., Trump's impeachments), and allows peaceful dissent—even violent riots lead to prosecutions, not state-sponsored murder.

External pressures test us, but they've "just started"? Hardly—history shows resilience (Cold War, 9/11, recent cyber threats). From an "outside in" view, the US remains a beacon of democracy, far from Iran's tyranny. Wait and see? We've been waiting centuries, and the system endures because it's designed to adapt, not fracture under pressure.

Facts trump doomsaying.

Yes and in 27 BCE Octavian was granted the title of Augustus by the Roman Senate. So who can say we haven't seen our last US election for a long time.

15 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Good, a 37-year-old US citizen, wasn't "innocent" in the context of the January 7, 2026, event:

Videos show her deliberately blocking ICE agents during a lawful raid, affiliated with anti-ICE activists, refusing commands, and accelerating her SUV, clipping Agent Jonathan Ross (causing his whiplash-like reaction) before he fired in self-defense. This wasn't murder of a random citizen—it's a tragic escalation from her obstruction, fitting federal use-of-force rules for vehicular threats!

You do a good job for the government, continue the same way, and thank you 🙏 you doing a good job!

19 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Good, a 37-year-old US citizen, wasn't "innocent" in the context of the January 7, 2026, event:

Videos show her deliberately blocking ICE agents during a lawful raid, affiliated with anti-ICE activists, refusing commands, and accelerating her SUV, clipping Agent Jonathan Ross (causing his whiplash-like reaction) before he fired in self-defense. This wasn't murder of a random citizen—it's a tragic escalation from her obstruction, fitting federal use-of-force rules for vehicular threats!

"Fired in self-defence".........

You really do have a problem chap, but Trump will be proud of you................

16 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Good, a 37-year-old US citizen, wasn't "innocent" in the context of the January 7, 2026, event:

Videos show her deliberately blocking ICE agents during a lawful raid, affiliated with anti-ICE activists, refusing commands, and accelerating her SUV, clipping Agent Jonathan Ross (causing his whiplash-like reaction) before he fired in self-defense. This wasn't murder of a random citizen—it's a tragic escalation from her obstruction, fitting federal use-of-force rules for vehicular threats!

You are contradicting yourself. Police laws guided by Supreme court precedent and departmental policy prohibit officer from shooting at a moving vehicle solely to stop a fleeing suspect. Deadly force only authorised when there is imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. Clipping agent Ross as you said is not an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. He walked away just fine and he trotted a distance to the victim's car showing no distress.

Just now, Eric Loh said:

You are contradicting yourself. Police laws guided by Supreme court precedent and departmental policy prohibit officer from shooting at a moving vehicle solely to stop a fleeing suspect. Deadly force only authorised when there is imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. Clipping agent Ross as you said is not an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. He walked away just fine and he trotted a distance to the victim's car showing no distress.

Then he executed the lady, he should be behind bars......😒

6 minutes ago, transam said:

Then he executed the lady, he should be behind bars......😒

He should if the FBI is fair with their investigation. State and local officers are already sounding the alarm of cover up and FBI authorising themselves solely in the investigation.

30 minutes ago, Peter Crow said:

Yes and in 27 BCE Octavian was granted the title of Augustus by the Roman Senate. So who can say we haven't seen our last US election for a long time.

Love the sarcasm, or is it dark irony...either way,,good one!!

28 minutes ago, Hummin said:

You do a good job for the government, continue the same way, and thank you 🙏 you doing a good job!

Maybe I am the Government?

Just now, mikeymike100 said:

Maybe I am the Government?

You vote? If you voted then you are, Trump is your man in the office, if you voted for Trump. We the people are the government, still I think 🤔

9 hours ago, Real Name Hidden said:

I feel sorry for the ICE agents and the abuse they'll be subjected to. Hopefully there won't be any more murders.

I don't. Feel sorry for them? They deserve to be arrested, charged and receive jail terms for their brutal out of control wholly unprofessional behaviour. Anyone who supports this foul abuse of the Constitution is equally culpable.

30 minutes ago, transam said:

Then he executed the lady, he should be behind bars......😒

Isn't it up to an independent FBI investigation, possibly followed by a federal prosecutor and—if warranted—a court of law and jury, to decide whether Agent Ross’s use of force was justified or criminal? Or are you judge, jury and executioner??

23 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You are contradicting yourself. Police laws guided by Supreme court precedent and departmental policy prohibit officer from shooting at a moving vehicle solely to stop a fleeing suspect. Deadly force only authorised when there is imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. Clipping agent Ross as you said is not an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. He walked away just fine and he trotted a distance to the victim's car showing no distress.

"You are contradicting yourself".......Really?

Federal policy (DHS/ICE and DOJ guidelines) and Supreme Court precedent (Tennessee v. Garner, Graham v. Connor, Scott v. Harris, and recent clarifications like Barnes v. Felix) do prohibit shooting at a moving vehicle solely to stop a fleeing suspect.

Deadly force is authorized only for an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others, judged under an objective reasonableness standard considering the totality of circumstances—not just the "moment of threat" in isolation.

But that's exactly why this shooting aligns with policy:

Agent Ross wasn't firing to stop a "fleeing suspect"—Good wasn't under arrest or fleeing custody; she was obstructing a lawful federal operation, accelerating her SUV toward/through his position after refusing commands, creating a perceived imminent vehicular threat in a confined street during a high-tension raid.

Videos show the vehicle's front corner contacting/clipping him (causing a visible lurch and "whoa" reaction), and his prior 2025 dragging incident (where he was pulled 50–100 yards and required stitches/hospitalization) provides context for why a similar slow-but-moving vehicle surge could reasonably feel life-threatening to him—even if he ultimately walked away uninjured this time.

The "clipping" wasn't trivial in context: A 4,000-pound vehicle doesn't need high speed to kill or maim if it pins, drags, or runs over someone—experts note officers are trained to treat vehicles as deadly weapons when they're coming at you.

Ross didn't "trot" casually; footage shows him reacting immediately, firing three rapid shots as the SUV surged past, then pursuing briefly while the threat was still active (vehicle continuing forward).

Walking away "fine" afterward doesn't negate the imminent danger perception at the moment of decision—hindsight isn't the legal test.

Policies discourage shooting at vehicles when avoidable (e.g., stepping aside), and critics rightly question Ross's positioning in the path—but ICE policy allows deadly force when no reasonable alternative exists and the operator poses imminent serious harm.

The FBI investigation will assess totality (including any tactical errors), but the evidence so far supports self-defense under federal standards, not a violation. Dismissing the contact and context as "not imminent" is the real contradiction—it's exactly the kind of scenario policies permit when the vehicle is used aggressively toward an officer. Facts over selective quoting.

Great idea, it seems that Minnesota is a haven for illegal alien child sex predators.