- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: For Anybody Here Who Thinks the ICE Agent Acted Wrongly, Tell Me What He Should've Done
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:13 pm to davyjones
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:13 pm to davyjones
quote:
I’d be willing to bet that the decades-old standard, understood and accepted standard, is that you unholster and ready your weapon based on indicators or “clues” leading a reasonable person to believe that the situation is quite possibly or likely heading in the direction of the unfortunate necessity of lethal force.
If not, that's what it should be.
These people expect cops to be fricking spider man or the Amazing Kreskin or something.
It's ridiculous. And I will maintain that opinion even if the court upholds Hank's view.
This post was edited on 1/9/26 at 8:16 pm
0
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:16 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:At this point, he is somewhere basically/directly in front of the left headlights. In those couple of feet, the vehicle MIGHT be able to accelerate up to 4-5 mph, right?
She backs up. When she puts the car in gear to go forward, he pulls the gun, because he's standing in front of the car. But he's only a few feet in front of the car.
So you tell me, she's going forward now, he's just a few feet in front of the car...under what circumstances is he not in danger of being struck at that point?
So let me ask you a related question.
Is it more "reasonable" at that point for him to kill the driver or to put his hands out and push himself to his right and thus out of the path of the vehicle? MAYBE he gets as sprain or a broken arm or something, versus another human losing her life.
Let's say that the driver was NOT a "crazed Progressive" (TM), but rather a 6yo locked into mommy's car and playing with the gear shift. The ability of the car to accelerate is identical and its exact potential path is equally unknowable.
Should the LEO (a) shoot the child or (b) try to leverage himself out of the vehicle's path?
Because, to be PAINFULLY honest here, I think that the Trumpists are allowing their dislike of Good's politics to drive their analysis of this event. If that hypothetical child had been behind the wheel, 95% of them would be arguing the other side.
This post was edited on 1/9/26 at 8:24 pm
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:20 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
1. How do you know the wheel wasn't already turned to the right? If it was, then he wouldn't have been able to see her turn it at all.
2. He was still in the way of the car even with the wheel turned all the way. How do I know? Because she actually hit him with the car with the wheel turned to the right. Again, he was only a couple of steps in front of the car.
1. Because as he's taking his sweet time walking around the car, the car wheels are clearly positioned to allow her to back up to the left. Meaning her steering wheel couldn't have already been turned into the correct position. This is also how you know she was going to turn right, because anyone who's ever driven knows you don't back up to the left just to move forward to turn left...
2. Believe it or not, I don't think she did the right thing, but the reality is she shouldn't have been shot in the head. Per their training he never should have been in front of the car, and it was pretty clear her intent wasn't to run him over (unless you really lack a brain). Not to mention shooting her in the head even after the point where he's definitely not in front of the car when doing so doesn't change the risk to him (aka the car doesn't just stop) is just all kinds of wrong. He's going to get hammered by a jury, just watch.
This post was edited on 1/9/26 at 8:23 pm
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:22 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Let's pretend an alien from Youjerkoffistan was locked in Alf's sitcom.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:25 pm to Jbird
Throw Alf a nice plump cat to feast upon and he’d lose interest in anything else he was previously getting into. Situation resolved.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:26 pm to davyjones
Indeed
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:26 pm to KCT
quote:
Tell Me What He Should've Done
Missed the other dyke.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:29 pm to loogaroo
quote:
Sure about that? Watch the wheels between 0:05 and 0:11 seconds
This video evidence destroys all leftist nonsense
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:31 pm to SpecialK_88
Training?
I was taught to never get in the WEZ of a SA5 SAM missile.
I found myself in that very threat near Benghazi during Hillary's lead f om behind NATO excursion.
It happens.
I was taught to never get in the WEZ of a SA5 SAM missile.
I found myself in that very threat near Benghazi during Hillary's lead f om behind NATO excursion.
It happens.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:32 pm to SpecialK_88
quote:
, and it was pretty clear her intent wasn't to run him over (unless you really lack a brain).
How in the frick do you know this???
And if your the officer standing in front of the vehicle, attempting to stop it....
In that split second, you damn sure can't make that determination.
The bottom line is that women driving the car made a bad decision and caused everything that happened next.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:32 pm to KCT
In hindsight, and only in hindsight, not pull the trigger. He shot after she turned the wheel to the right. He would have suffered the same bump.
Without the knowledge of hindsight video and in the heat of the moment, he was justified, IMO
Without the knowledge of hindsight video and in the heat of the moment, he was justified, IMO
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:34 pm to Jbird
Which is why they specify the terminology “in the moment” and mention the terminology “without the use or benefit of hindsight” as well. And I referenced this (or “these”) standards a few minutes ago and incorrectly used the words “reasonable person,” which is not accurate. The correct terminology is “reasonable officer,” which makes quite a difference in its effect.
(I believe we’re on the same page, or pretty close thereto, in this particular situation, btw. Just making sure I’m not being too ambiguous with my shits here.)
(I believe we’re on the same page, or pretty close thereto, in this particular situation, btw. Just making sure I’m not being too ambiguous with my shits here.)
This post was edited on 1/9/26 at 8:38 pm
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:38 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
And if your the officer standing in front of the vehicle, attempting to stop it....
This goes to my lack of brain comment, if you think you can stop a car by standing in front of one, it's clear there is no brain present. This again, is why they are trained to not stand in front of cars. Don't know how many times this needs to be repeated.
This post was edited on 1/9/26 at 8:41 pm
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:40 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Because, to be PAINFULLY honest here, I think that the Trumpists are allowing their dislike of Good's politics to drive their analysis of this event.
I can only speak for myself here, and I am not a Trump cult member.
quote:
Is it more "reasonable" at that point for him to kill the driver or to put his hands out and push himself to his right and thus out of the path of the vehicle? MAYBE he gets as sprain or a broken arm or something, versus another human losing her life.
It seems that such a question sort of mis-uses the traditional use of the "reasonable" standard to me.
In my understanding, that standard is not designed to hold officers to a standard of deciding what the BEST course of action might be in any situation. It's to determine whether it is reasonable for the officer to have perceived that his safety was in danger. Whether he calculated the BEST course of action is irrelevant. It's a binary, true false question. Not a "choose the BEST answer below" question.
But I will answer you nonetheless (even though you have answered few, if any of my questions to you).
quote:
Is it more "reasonable" at that point for him to kill the driver or to put his hands out and push himself to his right and thus out of the path of the vehicle?
How is he supposed to know that she intends to continue on the same trajectory? What if she started right and then straightened the wheel out on him? Again, the cop can't read minds and he literally had milliseconds to decide what to do. The standard you guys expect him to live up to is pretty ridiculous at this point.
quote:
Let's say that the driver was NOT a "crazed Progressive" (TM), but rather a 6yo locked into mommy's car and playing with the gear shift. The ability of the car to accelerate is identical and its exact potential path is equally unknowable.
Should the LEO (a) shoot the child or (b) try to leverage himself out of the vehicle's path?
This one I will not answer until/unless you answer my hypothetical that you ignored before about what if the driver had unexpectedly pulled out a firearm and fired a single shot out the window that narrowly missed the officer or clipped his ear (like Trump) instead of unexpectedly charging forward into the officer with her car. Would we agree that the shooting was justified then?
Tit for tat. Answer mine & I will answer yours.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:41 pm to BigEasy92
quote:
If you resist you die?
So, would she have died if she had simply protested instead of using her car as a weapon?
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:41 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
The right to cuff her is not the same as the right to kill her.
Right to cuff came from interfering with an ICE operation. Right to be shot came from attempting to drive over a LEO.
This isn't difficult.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:42 pm to KCT
Having reflected on it a bit, the best explanation for what happened is that he didn’t realize she was turning and thought she was coming at him.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:43 pm to SpecialK_88
quote:
Per their training he never should have been in front of the car
How do you know this? In reality in all the training I ever conducted you want to be as close to a right angle to the officer/troops you are covering?
quote:
it was pretty clear her intent wasn't to run him over
I keep seeing people say this and want to know if they have some telepathic power to ascertain her intent?
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:47 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:Yes, that would be justified. There are few reasonabl ways to interpret the discharge of a firearm directly at another person OTHER than as an attempt to harm them.
This one I will not answer until/unless you answer my hypothetical that you ignored before about what if the driver had unexpectedly pulled out a firearm and fired a single shot out the window that narrowly missed the officer or clipped his ear (like Trump) instead of unexpectedly charging forward into the officer with her car. Would we agree that the shooting was justified then?
By comparison, there are MANY potential explanations for Good's actions, the VAST majority of them FAR MORE reasonable than "intent to harm."
Posted on 1/9/26 at 8:48 pm to SpecialK_88
quote:
it was pretty clear her intent wasn't to run him over
It might be pretty clear to you watching a video sitting on your recliner. Do you think it was as obvious to the officer who was struck by the car?
I think y'all are having a really hard time seeing this from the perspective of the cop and imagining what it was like in his shoes.
Right now I'm watching Indiana beat the almighty piss out of Oregon. When I see a horizontal view of the field I'm screaming at the QB, "He's open! How do you not see that guy running wide open down the field??!!!"
Then they show a view from behind the QB and I' amazed that any QB ever completes a pass. Watching in the comfort of your robe and slippers is a damn sight different from being there and being the one that has already been threatened repeatedly by these people.
quote:
He's going to get hammered by a jury, just watch.
I've consistently conceded that that could happen. But that won't mean that it is the correct decision. Again, when we get to the point that thugs that no one else will take are the only ones willing to be LE officers (and we're close enough to that point already for me), this sort of unreasonable bullshite will be the reason why.
Page 9 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News