Joey Jones
@Johnny_Joey
Calling him a domestic terrorist and acting like he was a “gunman” because he was carrying a pistol is neither accurate to the videos and information we have, nor necessary in defending the actions of the CBP agents.
If he was not carrying his state ID and carry permit he was not legally carrying his gun.
However, none of the videos I’ve seen show him reach for or brandishing the gun, or even use it to threaten anyone. Granted, I don’t know what, if anything, was said before or during the incident.
I don’t know what was said by either of the protestors prior to the CBP agents aggressively pushing them.
One video shows him in the middle of the street trying to direct traffic through what looks to be an active ICE/CBP operation.
It is clear that the CBP agents at that scene were in a zero tolerance posture for any agitators or protesters interfering with their operation. That is their prerogative and probably something that they felt necessary considering the increasingly emboldened agitators they have encountered in recent weeks.
Several videos from many angles appear to show he was disarmed by one agent from behind during the struggle to subdue him, and then shot by another agent who would not have been able to see he no longer had his gun.
So, what would qualify the shooting as a “good shoot”?
It’s necessary to refer to the landmark SCOTUS case Grahm v Connor
(Text received by career SWAT officer and use of deadly force instructor)
“Under the 4th amendment, did the officer who pulled the trigger truly believe HE WAS IN IMMINENT DANGER based on the at that moment, based on the totality of the circumstances with reasonableness being the key to the 4th amendment”
(Pulled from internet)
“The ruling requires courts to assess an officer's actions from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, considering the totality of the circumstances, such as the severity of the crime, the suspect's resistance, and the immediate threat, rather than with the benefit of hindsight.”
This ruling specifically EXCLUDES the benefit of hindsight, which would include information that’s obvious to a bystander or all of us watching a video from a completely different perspective, but not known to the office using force.
What does this mean? It means that if the officer who fired at him felt immediately threatened because: 1) suspect aggressively resisting arrest 2) fellow officers shouting “gun, gun, gun” 3) [possibly] a gunshot negligently discharge- all happening at the same time, then an investigator, judge or jury could easily discern that the officer met the reasonableness clause for justified deadly force.
If this narrative derived from several videos I’ve seen is accurate then a few things are true.
1) it was not necessary to shoot him to save anyone’s life
2) the agent who fired did so legally based on a totality of circumstances known to him at that time
3) the man who was shot was committing multiple crimes/felonies leading up to being shot
4) negligence on behalf of the agent who disarmed him and potentially accidentally discharged the firearm helped lead to the confusion
My opinion: the second amendment is a right, not a privilege. I believe any law abiding citizen has the right to carry a firearm to protect themselves. However, it does not exclude us from exercising common sense or remove our responsibility for public safety when carrying… especially in public. Our actions when carrying matter. And should be influenced by the very fact we are carrying a firearm. Our interactions with police officers and federal agents when carrying a should be influenced by the fact we ARE CARRYING A FIREARM.
Stupidity, ignorance, or moments of passion shouldn’t be a death sentence. But it is at our own hands, by our own actions that our lives are at risks, not those enforcing the laws we are breaking. They are acting on the very limited information we have offered them by carrying while breaking the law.
Last edited
12:34 PM · Jan 25, 2026
