DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus ICE murdered a US citizen in MN

I made an error in regards to the budget for ICE. It is $28 billion for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026, largely due to a significant funding increase from the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act". This budget makes ICE the highest-funded federal law enforcement agency.

So yes, rather than drain the limited local law enforcement budget to help them do the federal job of enforcing immigration laws, let ICE pay them for their time and resources instead of expecting them to allow ICE to leach off of them.

These cities don't want ICE there. You can't "vote ICE out of your community". The vast majority of those who did vote for trump don't live in any of these cities. In case you didn't get the memo, the presidency isn't decided by a majority of the votes. It's decided by the electoral college.

Just imagine, not so long ago you supported state and local governments rights to mainly govern themselves and wanted the federal government to stay out of it. Now you want the feds all up peoples ass. It's amazing how much one man can get you to abandon the very things you used to stand for.

Just because you do not like something and do not want something does not mean you get to break laws and attack ICE officers etc.... Trump won the election and he won it in large part to his stance on illegal immigration. Election have consequences. Ice is doing their duty and illegals have to legal right to be in the country.

What does that have to do with ICE paying for the support they need to enforce federal law?

And what does that have to do with the fact Republicans used to say let states and cities run things on their own and now you want the feds in all of these cities?

We know elections have consequences. We had no idea one of those consequences would be one man ruling our nation with an executive order pen. Neither did a lot of people who voted for him.

You're trying unsuccessfully to move goal posts. ICE has and always has been to enforce immigration standards, and we have people in our country illegally and they need to be removed. There are no easy ways to remove them but allowing them to stay and break our laws is unacceptable.

Trump said he was going after "the worse of the worst". But that's not what's happening here. All you see is a huge flashing sign that says ILLEGAL!

What people in these communities see far too often is Juan who lives down the street from them who works hard every day to support his family, whose children play soccer with their kids at school, were raised in their neighborhood and are well mannered, who are devout Catholics, and bought and improved a home in their neighborhood which helped raise their own property values is being threatened with having his entire family torn apart.

And all of that for a misdemeanor that happened 15 or 20 years ago.

You see that as justice and they see that as a travesty to justice.

I knew such a man a little over 20 years ago. He fits that description to a tee. He had two grown sons who also bought homes and made improvements in neighborhoods they could afford to purchase a home and was in need of improvement. Those three houses were the best looking houses on the block because of their work ethic and sweat equity. Kind, fine upstanding men every one of them. They would give you the shirt off their backs.

I don't want people like that going anywhere. Our society needs more people like that, not less. Tax payers leading productive lives.

I knew them and I've gotten to know who you are by your posts. I would rather have them for neighbors any time over you.

I would not want you as a neighbor either. Don't worry in our next life you will not being seeing me anyway. I am sorry but illegal is illegal and they have no place in the US. Vote in November besides that peaceful protest but when it goes beyond peaceful stop whining when officers then defend themselves.

You're right. I won't be joining you in hell.

You might want to tell all of those people who can not be prosecuted because their crimes went beyond the statute of limitations that the law covers them and their crimes are forgiven. You remember forgiveness don't you? That little thing Jesus taught us about.

I hope you're right about you not going to hell. I know your wrong about me though. I see you are confused a little though Jesus died for your sins not your crimes.

Jesus also crossed borders freely. Man creates crimes Jesus has no part of.

Actually, he did not cross any borders. When he was alive the Romans occupied Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Syria etc... so even though he crossed the border of what is called Egypt to get out of the Jewish power base of so-called King Harod Israel and Egypt were both Roman territories so there were really no borders inside that territory. He really did not cross the border of any country it was all Roman territory. That is why in the Book of Acts less than 100 years after Jesus' birth when the Jews wanted to kill Paul, he pronounced himself a Roman citizen thus making it illegal for the Jews in Israel to kill him without Roman authority. Just so you understand the timeline Jesus was crucified at around 32 or 33 years old. Rome burnt the temple in Jerusalem 70 years after Jesus' death and Paul lived between the time of Jesus birth and died before the temple was burnt by Rome. So, Jesus never crossed real borders from one Sovern country to another.

Nice dodge but there were also no immigration laws in place or barriers to where you traveled and where you lived. Not for Jesus or anyone else. You are talking about invented laws by man since that time. And yes, they were all separate places and he crossed those borders freely.

Man, this looks a little less than 94% peaceful...

"97% pEeCeFuLL"

and Ice didn't have morons throwing temper tantrums and trying to stop them from doing their job because it was a Democratic President.

Now that it's Trump... people have lost their dayum minds

You guys are funny as hell. Must all get spoon fed from the same source.

Calling for an angry mob, whipped up by outright lies about a stolen election, to march to the capital building and telling them they needed to fight like hell or they won't have a country anymore .... that's all fine and dandy and not incitement.

Protesting against ICE agents running rampant in your city - that's insurrection and seditious!!

LMAO - I mean could you be any more hypocritical? Got to be a real true fanboy to post that crapolla.

Watching what this administration does and the watching the things they post one of two things has to be true. They're either total morons or they're trolling. I'm not sure which one yet.

This is well said. Trump was actually pretty clear on what he wanted to do in terms of immigration and ICE. He ran on a platform of demonizing a (relative) minority and characterizing the Dem's response (accurately) as woefully inadequate... and people voted for it.

Democrat voters were the ones that didn't show up a year ago.

Police Officer with "Internal Bleeding" was never examined by medical personal nor taken to a hospital - https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/15/us/minneapolis-shooting-ice

From everything I've seen trump has been telling NATO what to do and not the other way around.

The latest thing is telling NATO to support the U.S. taking Greenland or he may place tariffs on them for not doing so. I would call that extortion but that's such an ugly word.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jan/15/cbs-news-ice-officer-injuries

Some are skeptical of the internal bleeding story. It certainly didn't look to me like her car hit him with any sort of force, but it's hard to tell.


One of my favorite things to do these days is poke fun at 'guerilla journalists' and the sensationalism that they put out there... but unfortunately it's the major news outlets that keep failing to get their act together.

Videos show him walking away after the shooting with on signs of injury. But I won't say he didn't sustain an injury.

What I do know is if you combine the fact he walked away seemingly just fine and combine that with the fact he was seen and released from the hospital on the same day, any injury he may have sustained was not severe enough to be admitted to a hospital. So at the very least they are overplaying that part of the story and may be fabricating it all together.

Sorry man. Police very rarely take just one shot. The don't shoot then stand around to see what happened. They shoot multiple times. Not doing so is a good way to get killed.

Turning the car away or not, she hit the guy.

Ummm... I can't find anything from your article that supports that claim. I can't even find reference to his hospital visit (or lack thereof) in that piece. I've checked three times and Cntr/F 'ed "hospital" and "internal". Nothing. What am I missing?

I have no idea why you can't admit that a police firing their weapon is when they or someone elses life in danger. Not after such a threat no longer exists. None of this is hard.

The second and third shots were clearly taken when there was at least four feet of clearance between him and the vehicle and that distance was increasing.

As I've stated many times now, I understand why the first shot was taken. No matter her intent I can see how and why he would have felt his life was in danger and needed to make that shot.

My only contention with the first shot is the administration claims she was aiming the car at him and intentionally using it as a weapon. The video plainly shows that is a lie. Trump actually said "She ran over him." Which is yet another lie.

The agent turned his body to the left as she was driving away and made those last two shots when he was no longer in any danger. You can make up any excuse for that you like but that's exactly what happened. It's akin to saying when you shoot someone that is armed, even after the weapon they were holding is no longer a threat to you, just keep shooting.

That's been repeated numerous times. It's been talked about at least 100 times on this site before this event. Some think he should have stopped and thought about things during that 8/10ths of a second. You know, like in The Matrix.

The day after the fatal Jan. 7 shooting, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem told reporters Ross had been taken to the hospital, but he was released and home with family.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...red-internal-bleeding-torso/88182659007/

So she said there was no internal bleeding??

And Loookie up above says he was never taken to the hospital.

Quit picking on the #newcomers!
Walz - they're taking more of our neighbors, what should we do???

Yes, according to some it must take two or three seconds to process whether you're still in direct danger or not. If it takes you that long to figure it out, you shouldn't be a law enforcement officer. Your brain isn't capable of processing life and death decisions fast enough. In theory having such an ability is an part of the duties your job requires. Probably one of the most important parts.

Let me ask you something. When the police go into a home, how long do they have to decide whether someone in that house is a threat or not before deciding whether to fire their weapon at them? Here's the answer. A fraction of a second. It's a situation law enforcement agents across this country face every say.

It says he suffered no injuries that require he remain hospitalized. It seems she said this before they decided to make his injuries sound so severe. I mean for people who are still foolish enough to believe anything that comes out of their pie holes.

Those two things are not comparable. Being prepared for a threat to your life and being immediately introduced to one are two entirely different things.

And it is NOT two or three seconds.

Well, well, well. Dr Pit has spoken. He should have remained hospitalized.

You said eight tenths of a second transpired and that it wasn't enough time. So what is enough time? When someone is fleeing away from your direction and is no longer a threat to you, what is the ample time you think is needed to process that in order not to fire at a fleeing suspect?

You're playing a hindsight game that contradicts nearly everything about training, threat assessment and how the human mind works. Using an after-the-fact, multiple video analysis... and then exaggerating what is seen on that (there is never "at least four feet" while he is still shooting).

Human brain says threat.
Training says shoot.
Training says "shoot until the threat stops".

Do you think the officer is looking at the separation between himself and the vehicle he was just struck by and just shooting "no look" bullets? Nope. that would be impossible, or at least impossibly stupid, wouldn't it? He's looking at a target that is still coming toward him. No matter how you try to reconstruct this, that's a fact you won't be able to dispute.

There's a huge gap between "What this officer did makes him guilty of a criminal offense beyond reasonable doubt" and "What the officer did was wrong."

Everybody should be able to agree that the second and third shots were the wrong decision, because there was absolutely no threat by that point. The "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is something that has real legal stakes -- and so we fortunately leave that to juries and not to twitter or dawgtalkers.

That's actually hilarious.

When you say "by that point", I feel like you're struck in an illogical place produced by Hollywood and armchair sleuthing.

Look back at that clock I pointed Pit to earlier. Watch one second tick away.

Now tell me, in good conscience, you're sure the officer should have seen threat, got struck by vehicle, fired one shot and been sure the threat was neutralized in that time span.

Really?

In his world being sure can be the meaning between life and death.

I said he made the wrong choice - there was objectively no threat - the video is very clear that he is off to the side of the car when he fired the second and third shot. He fired through the side window.

Cars can't move sideways.

The "reaction time" argument is about whether he committed a crime - not whether he made the right decision.

We say that that NFL QBs make "wrong decisions" by throwing into coverage all the time -- that's not because we don't understand that NFL passing lanes are tight and it looked like a reasonable decision at the time.