Posted: Yesterday 11:19:34 PM EDT
|
DHS clarified that Perez “entered illegally under the Biden Administration. The illegal alien had no valid work permit, had no protective status, and had a final order of removal from a Department of Justice (DOJ) Immigration Judge.” One of the assertions that Perez’s lawyer has industriously circulated and that the press has been all too happy to report is that ICE cruelly refused to allow doctors to promptly remove the bullet from Perez. DHS pointed out how ridiculous this claim is given that ICE has no authority over a hospital's treatment decisions, nor would it recommend a specific course of treatment. In fact, DHS stated that Perez is receiving round-the-clock medical care, including pain medication, almost certainly on the taxpayers' dime. Perez’s lawyer has also falsely insisted that Perez has a valid work permit at the present time. In fact, the work permit expired in 2025, and Perez should never have had it given that he entered our country illegally. This illegal alien was the subject of a targeted vehicle stop. What makes someone a target for immigration enforcement is whether or not they are illegally in the U.S. More here: https://pjmedia.com/catherinesalgado/2026/09/22/dhs-corrects-the-record-on-shot-illegal-alien-in-texas-n4957534 |
|
I glanced at the other thread and see the usual suspect was covering for this guy. I’m sure he will be over to correct his non sense anytime now. Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By WesJanson: Still unclear why they escalated to deadly force. Thought he was going to ram them? Reaching for something? Negligent discharge? The linked article does not say why. But the wounded perp was not a nice person. |
|
Originally Posted By RLR350: I glanced at the other thread and see the usual suspect was covering for this guy. I’m sure he will be over to correct his non sense anytime now. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/188107/IMG_1155_jpeg-3831982.JPG Waiting for correction and apology. Waiting. Waiting. Still waiting. |
Arfcom's favorite midnight DG shelf stocker
Joined:
Apr 2004
Posts:
77600
EE: 100% (26)
UKR
|
Originally Posted By Lou_Daks: The linked article does not say why. But the wounded perp was not a nice person. Immaterial if he was a nice or bad person. 4th amendment rules protect everyone. Was this a justified or bad shoot? 
|
connoisseur of fine Soviet and European armored vehicles since 2007.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
|
Originally Posted By fadedsun: Immaterial if he was a nice or bad person. 4th amendment rules protect everyone. Was this a justified or bad shoot? Someone in this country ILLEGALLY should not be afforded any rights or protections granted to citizens. The illegal aspect of them being here makes them a criminal. Why the fuck should we offer protection to criminals? |
|
Originally Posted By voodoocustomz: Someone in this country ILLEGALLY should not be afforded any rights or protections granted to citizens. The illegal aspect of them being here makes them a criminal. Why the fuck should we offer protection to criminals? Originally Posted By voodoocustomz: Originally Posted By fadedsun: Immaterial if he was a nice or bad person. 4th amendment rules protect everyone. Was this a justified or bad shoot? Someone in this country ILLEGALLY should not be afforded any rights or protections granted to citizens. The illegal aspect of them being here makes them a criminal. Why the fuck should we offer protection to criminals? Because human beings don't come with floating ID tags over their head labeling them as citizens or non-citizens? I've had plenty of shitbags in my sights during my career. For better or worse, I don't get to shoot them just because they're shitbags. ICE operates under the same laws as the rest of us. Deadly force must be justifiable under statutory and case law. The lack of any explanation as to the "why" doesn't bode well here. |
Arfcom's favorite midnight DG shelf stocker
Joined:
Apr 2004
Posts:
77602
EE: 100% (26)
UKR
|
Originally Posted By voodoocustomz: Someone in this country ILLEGALLY should not be afforded any rights or protections granted to citizens. The illegal aspect of them being here makes them a criminal. Why the fuck should we offer protection to criminals? Originally Posted By voodoocustomz: Originally Posted By fadedsun: Immaterial if he was a nice or bad person. 4th amendment rules protect everyone. Was this a justified or bad shoot? Someone in this country ILLEGALLY should not be afforded any rights or protections granted to citizens. The illegal aspect of them being here makes them a criminal. Why the fuck should we offer protection to criminals? Because it’s a restraint on unlawful government action that should apply to everyone. Leftists wanted to do the same to people who didn’t get the covid shot and didn’t wear a mask. If it’s a good shoot in line with applicable case law and statutory law then no worries. If it’s a bad shoot then there should be something coming down on those responsible. People should never be shot or lose rights solely because they’re a criminal |
connoisseur of fine Soviet and European armored vehicles since 2007.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
|
Originally Posted By fadedsun: Because it’s a restraint on unlawful government action that should apply to everyone. Leftists wanted to do the same to people who didn’t get the covid shot and didn’t wear a mask. If it’s a good shoot in line with applicable case law and statutory law then no worries. If it’s a bad shoot then there should be something coming down on those responsible. People should never be shot or lose rights solely because they’re a criminal Remember that last line if someone decides to become a criminal, break into your house, and attempt to harm you. If a person chooses to criminalize themselves, and not live within the laws, then why should they receive any protections from those laws? |
|
Originally Posted By voodoocustomz: Remember that last line if someone decides to become a criminal, break into your house, and attempt to harm you. If a person chooses to criminalize themselves, and not live within the laws, then why should they receive any protections from those laws? Shit, they do that already if they get the wrong address or if you look like you're a bit shifty anyway. I won't go into details here since it's considered "anti LEO discussion", but read some of the LEO posts from 2012 to present and see their outlook on line and you'll realize we're all criminals, it's just a matter of how many other charges they can slap on you if they can't get a "big ticket" arrest. All the whiners against profiling make it so grandmas and everybody but Islamic appearing people get colonoscopies at the airport, but police still profile all the time, because, shocker, it works. Coming up soon, we're either going to see some movie outcomes become reality. "Law Abiding Citizen" or (favorite dystopian novel or maybe just Nazi Death Camps with no movie needed) |
The person who complains most, and is the most critical of others has the most to hide.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.