- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
SCOTUS RULING: Graham v. Connor... SORRY DEMS
Posted on 1/25/26 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 1/25/26 at 12:56 pm
The Supreme Court ruled that an officer's actions must be judged from the perspective of a "reasonable officer on the scene," not with the "20/20 vision of hindsight."
All that matters is whether the objective facts of the situation—such as a hostile crowd or a public call for resistance—would make a reasonable officer feel that masking or self defense is necessary for tactical safety.
FACT:
By calling ICE agents "Gestapo" and urging citizens to "witness" and "resist," Walz is attempting to frame the agents' actions as a violation of civil rights (Substantive Due Process) he set this in motion.
Walz’s rhetoric has actually created the dangerous environment that makes masks "objectively reasonable." They argue that the more people "get in their faces," the more force and anonymity the law allows the agents to use to maintain control.
All that matters is whether the objective facts of the situation—such as a hostile crowd or a public call for resistance—would make a reasonable officer feel that masking or self defense is necessary for tactical safety.
FACT:
By calling ICE agents "Gestapo" and urging citizens to "witness" and "resist," Walz is attempting to frame the agents' actions as a violation of civil rights (Substantive Due Process) he set this in motion.
Walz’s rhetoric has actually created the dangerous environment that makes masks "objectively reasonable." They argue that the more people "get in their faces," the more force and anonymity the law allows the agents to use to maintain control.
This post was edited on 1/25/26 at 1:03 pm
8
Posted on 1/25/26 at 12:58 pm to BCreed1
quote:
must be judged from the perspective of a "reasonable officer on the scene," not with the "20/20 vision of hindsight."
So common sense…
Posted on 1/25/26 at 12:59 pm to BCreed1
Absolutely this is easily justified action. Everyone wants to micro analyze the situation but anyone in that 6 foot circle was in a threatening situation even without the protests going on.
Perp resisting, armed and flailing his hands free with unknown objects in his hands while other offers have yelled gun! Gun!
Perp resisting, armed and flailing his hands free with unknown objects in his hands while other offers have yelled gun! Gun!
Posted on 1/25/26 at 1:00 pm to W2NOMO
People just do not realize the kind of pressure an LEO is under when facing resistance.
Posted on 1/25/26 at 1:01 pm to BCreed1
quote:
Walz’s rhetoric has actually created the dangerous environment that makes masks "objectively reasonable." They argue that the more people "get in their faces," the more force and anonymity the law allows the agents to use to maintain control.
Walz is working very hard to become the new Fauci. Criminally bent, willing to sacrifice a few useful idiots for the greater good, all to be lionized by the Left.
This post was edited on 1/25/26 at 1:05 pm
Posted on 1/25/26 at 1:03 pm to BCreed1
Bad day for Monday morning quarterbacks.
Posted on 1/25/26 at 1:05 pm to BCreed1
All these idiots act nobody has the ability to just start cooperating. I’m sorry that this happened, but even his parents told him to stay away, and they appear to be left of center themselves. The amount of people who have been killed by LEO’s, while being completely cooperative, can be counted on one hand in a country of 340 million.
Posted on 1/25/26 at 1:08 pm to David_DJS
The "Reasonable Officer" vs. The Result
Under Graham, the fact that a person died does not automatically make the force "unreasonable." The court ignores the "20/20 vision of hindsight" and asks: Was the use of force reasonable based only on what the officer knew at the split-second they pulled the trigger?
Scenario............................................................... Is it "Reasonable" under Graham?
Unarmed suspect reaches for waistband ......Yes (If a "reasonable officer" would perceive a weapon threat).
Suspect is shot while running away ............No (Unless they pose an immediate threat to the public, per Garner).
Suspect is killed due to a medical mistake .....Yes (As long as the officer didn't know about the medical condition, as in the original Graham case).
Officer "provokes" the fight, then shoots .....Yes (Following Barnes v. Felix, "provocation" is largely ignored if the final shot was reasonable).
Under Graham, the fact that a person died does not automatically make the force "unreasonable." The court ignores the "20/20 vision of hindsight" and asks: Was the use of force reasonable based only on what the officer knew at the split-second they pulled the trigger?
Scenario............................................................... Is it "Reasonable" under Graham?
Unarmed suspect reaches for waistband ......Yes (If a "reasonable officer" would perceive a weapon threat).
Suspect is shot while running away ............No (Unless they pose an immediate threat to the public, per Garner).
Suspect is killed due to a medical mistake .....Yes (As long as the officer didn't know about the medical condition, as in the original Graham case).
Officer "provokes" the fight, then shoots .....Yes (Following Barnes v. Felix, "provocation" is largely ignored if the final shot was reasonable).
Posted on 1/25/26 at 1:13 pm to Timeoday
In 2025, Graham v. Connor was used to clear officers in several high-profile fatal shootings by shifting the focus from the "moment of the shot" to the "totality of the circumstances" leading up to it.
The most landmark example of this is the Supreme Court’s May 15, 2025, ruling in Barnes v. Felix.
There is a separate thread for this
The most landmark example of this is the Supreme Court’s May 15, 2025, ruling in Barnes v. Felix.
There is a separate thread for this
Posted on 1/25/26 at 1:19 pm to Timeoday
quote:
People just do not realize the kind of pressure an LEO is under when facing resistance.
Couldn’t they have just shot out his tires?
ETA: J/K
This post was edited on 1/25/26 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 1/25/26 at 1:25 pm to Penrod
quote:
Couldn’t they have just shot out his tires?
I guess they should have waited until he emptied one of his clips into the crowd. Oh wait, he would not have done something like that.
Maybe Law Enforcement ROA rules need to change because people do have a bear arms to carry in public.
I really appreciate Johnathan Karl finally admitting it.
Posted on 1/25/26 at 1:27 pm to BCreed1
Walz and the other Dems are misleading their minions.
Several on this board don't understand or know what you just posted.
Most normal people know you don't touch a cop or get in their way. ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE CARRYING.
Several on this board don't understand or know what you just posted.
Most normal people know you don't touch a cop or get in their way. ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE CARRYING.
Posted on 1/25/26 at 1:31 pm to BCreed1
quote:
FACT:
By calling ICE agents "Gestapo" and urging citizens to "witness" and "resist," Walz is attempting to frame the agents' actions as a violation of civil rights (Substantive Due Process) he set this in motion.
Walz’s rhetoric has actually created the dangerous environment that makes masks "objectively reasonable." They argue that the more people "get in their faces," the more force and anonymity the law allows the agents to use to maintain control.
He is actively contributing to inciting an armed insurrection and not even pretending to seek a de-escalation any more. He clearly wants blood.
I picked a bad week to try and stop cussing. It's hard to not want to napalm these idiots, let alone merely avoid cussing them out for being voluntarily retarded.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News