This video is of Kyle Thompson, a security contractor who was simply trying to take photos of pipeline equipment that had been damaged near Standing Rock, North Dakota.

As you can see above, he pulls a gun when protesters begun to swarm him, some of whom were armed with knives.

The scene almost looks like one from the Walking Dead.

Thompson did not fire his gun, and he won’t be facing charges, because authorities determined he “acted in self-defense after his truck was run off of the road and set on fire.”

Protesters have occupied the area in opposition against an oil pipeline being built near what is being deemed as historical and sacred land of Native Americans.

Additional information click here, and additional video can be seen here.

  • Phil W

    Will the protesters be charged for what they did?

    • reaper_69

      Not as long a the muslim George Soros puppet is still in our White House! Obama supports the rioting filth just as he did in Ferguson!

  • TheEPClark

    Sorry Folks, but he acted the same as I would, if a swarm of Native Indians with knives ran me off the road and set my Truck on fire and then came at me !!!! The Indians were lucky the guy had the where-with-all NOT to shoot any one of them, when in fact he had the right to do so, given the circumstances. The Indians were RIGHT in NOT continuing their challenge to him any further, so both party’s showed proper restraint in the encounter, making the entire matter a NONE FATAL EVENT !!!!!

    Other than that, I side with the Native Indians in PRESERVING their GRAVE SITES and whatever is SACRED to them. We have enough PROBLEMS,………..let’s not make things any worse !!!!

    • MikeS

      Nothing is being desecrated. The pipeline bypasses the grave sites.

    • Rabbitchoker

      This pipeline follows 2 pre-existing pipelines–one natural gas the other electrical. This is about the fact that for the past 2 years meeting were held, and Standing Rock didn’t bother to attend. Originally the line was to go through the Rez. they were offered 10 million–the natives demanded 50 million–DAPL re-routed through white owned land–people who weren’t so damned greedy I guess. All the studies have been done, anytime there was a questionable area, it was examined by both white and red experts–cleared or re-routed. This protest has been on private land 4 miles from the rez. Way past time to bulldoze them out. If you allow them they would call anywhere a native took a piss to be sacred–how about if they care so much for sacred things how about they clean up their own reservation? the sexual abuse, the rampant meth use, theft, murder–how about making that sacred?

  • ?? Indy ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ

    He should have mowed them all down.

  • scott

    only mistake was not shooting until he had no more ammo.kill all these sh-tbags

  • Russell Smith

    This is tribal land, a “reservation” by treaty with the US government. Those native Americans own that land, as if it were sovereign land. There should be no pipeline running through it period, without the full consent of the tribal elders. No consent, no pipeline. go around. The government makes treaties, then it intends to not honor them, this is the problem here. The US Government no longer has claim to this land.

    • MikeS

      No it is not. You obviously have not bothered to look at the map of the pipeline path and location of the reservation. It is close, but not on the “reservation”.

    • Sandy

      Russ, the pipe runs in public land. The protest is that it cuts across a source of water. And these pretend indians are concerned that any possible pipeline leak will foul the reservation’s water.

      The solution is to either foreclose on the pretend indian’s reservation land, or lock up any and everybody that shows up near a pipeline with ill intent. Choose your poison.

      I like the foreclosure option. Time is way past for these people to realize history has passed them by. So sorry but you can no longer shoot dozens of arrows into buffalo or into your neighboring tribe’s warriors and then go sleep in teepees. Its quite, quite down now. Wake the heck up.

      • freebirds

        They act like pipelines explode every day or something. It’s still the safest way to distribute. I’m with you on this one.

      • Rabbitchoker

        Not to mention that the water issue is a moot point. Standing Rock gets their water from Mobridge, SD–from a state of the art water treatment plant paid for with 32 million tax payer dollars. Also maybe if water was so sacred their casino wouldn’t dump raw sewage into the river.

  • Greg Valley

    All you have to do is shoot the first one. Nobody knows who will be next! Castle doctrine.

    • Snake

      Yes, and shoot the first one in the hip/waist to wound him, then it will take 2-3 more to carry him to safety.

      • Mort Leith

        You NEVER shoot to wound,, EVER !

        • Richard Walker

          I donno Mort, wounding makes the wounded soak up resources and costs your enemy money and time. I agree with you when it is one on one or even one on three or four. Beyond that I am shooting to put them down so they won’t get to me. If they die because of that, it’s OK with me.

          • Rua Richard Cranium

            hence the preferred use of 5.56 vs 7.62 by the armed forces(one of the reasons)… 1 bullet = 2-3 men out of the fight

            allah fubar

          • cmi

            Shoot to KILL!!!! Otherwise face a B.S. lawsuit!!!!!

          • drdos1943

            Yes, you always shoot to kill. Haven’t you taken any firearms training courses? … but never shoot someone running away unless he has a weapon that can still be a threat to you…. a gun, a grenade, etc.

          • Richard Walker

            Geez, drdos, does 7 years as a US Marine from 1968 to 1974, enlisting as a Private and getting released as a Captain qualify as being “firearms trained”? Back then I knew how to properly operate with devastating effect every weapon available to a Marine grunt company, along with being able to call in the associated support (air strikes, artillery, etc.) I was also a combat qualified pilot in the F-4J Phantom II, which carried a rather formidable arsenal. I’ll shoot anybody that is a threat, running away or not. If I wound him it’s OK; if I kill him that’s OK too. I guess you must have x-ray vision to see if someone running away has a weapon. Waste him and you don’t have to worry about what he has.

          • drdos1943

            I do not care what your qualifications are. If you shoot someone, who is running away and who is not a direct threat, you are going to prison. … and you should know that you never, ever shoot to WOUND anyone. You always shoot to KILL. I sincerely doubt anything that you have writ is credible. Good day, Sir … and God Speed.

        • TheBitterClinger1

          “I fired to Stop the Threat”?

          • reaper_69

            I always fire to stop the threat, permanently!

      • brucefandrews

        It is apparent you don’t know much about guns and fights. First in a fight the instant the adrenalin shoots EVERYONE loses their small motor skills. In a gun fight the only difference between someone being wounded or dead is luck. If the person being shot at is extremely
        lucky at that very moment they are wounded. If not, they are dead. If you haven’t practiced until it is muscle memory. You will have great difficulty pulling it off in an actual gun fight. How do I know? I’ve been in many gun fights and I am still alive. However, I have been extremely lucky 3 times as I have been wounded 3 times.

  • Mort Leith

    What a pu55y,, he should have shot them all DRT ! !
    WTFO

  • CJS3

    If they aren’t on Treaty Land, then the protesters have no reason to be there. If they are on Indian land, then the pipeline companies have no reason to be there. Neither side has made a definitive statement one way or the other. This tells me that neither side is sure of their legal position. It’s easier to say sorry than ask for permission, and it looks like that’s the position of both sides. It will probably take an act of congress to resolve the issue, and that ain’t happening until the new congress is sworn in, in 2017.

  • Aaaarg!

    Criminal behavior on the part of the protesters. Specially that woman.

  • Front Sight

    Justifiable Homicide: Self Defense against a Disparity of Force.
    Recognized in all states, including the People’s Demokratik Socialist Republik of Kalifornia.

  • Dryden01

    Not a good situation to be in. The poor guy was surrounded by no account Indian braves that were being led by a loud mouthed squaw. The Indians are lucky none of them got killed: they should have learned about cowboys versus Indians from their tribal elders!

    • tenn2113

      Kind of sounds like they brought Knives to a gun fight… hahahaha How would that have turned out?

    • reaper_69

      That is why I would have opened fire on any one of them before got close enough to use their knives! Especially with the bitch screaming ”get him”, ”Take his vehicle”, and ”don’t let him get away”! At that point they would have had some incoming fire!

  • freebirds

    I would have made sure that my truck would be the last truck they burned for sure.

  • TheBitterClinger1

    This country is dying, there is no “the American People”. We’re NOT going to be Great Again and not Stronger Together.
    Render Her asunder and try something new letting the Moochers, Whiners and Wimps have their own country – say Moocherstan.
    And shooting a large number of protesters would have resulted in a large legal bill ?

    • reaper_69

      What do you suggest? That he just let the mob take his weapon away and depend on their ‘good intentions’ for his survival?

  • ADRoberts

    1. They violently ran him off the road.
    2. “Don’t let him walk away” What did she want them to do? Kill him
    3. He should have shot to kill.
    4. Charges against all of them
    5. The pipe line is NOT on Indian property. This is just another attempt by “entitled” takers who want more and more and more.

    • reaper_69

      Don’t use logic and facts on rioting mobs, it just confuses them!

      • ADRoberts

        No it does confuse them. My remarks were directed, or should have been, at authorities who should have been filing charges.

        • reaper_69

          Filing charges against who? The rioting mob who are destroying private property?

          • ADRoberts

            Okay. That would be a start. See what happens when a liberal DA has a conservative Christian in his sights. See if he, in any way, restricts the number of charges he will file?

  • LibtardsRTerrorists

    Ever notice……whether it’s black or white, Native A., Hispanic, Asian, whatever……it’s almost ALWAYS some nitwit FEMALE with a blowhorn for a mouth that is always trying to instigate or escalate Violence???

    But the Feminazis tell us ‘dumb men’ that it’s just the opposite!?

Become an Insider!

Enter your email address below to stay in the loop and read our latest and greatest updates!

Send this to friend