- 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: The definitive video showing Good's vehicle striking the agent
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:28 pm to Vacherie Saint
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:28 pm to Vacherie Saint
even better video it's a good shoot
1
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:28 pm to Nosevens
quote:Whether he would have WANTED to allow himself to sustain "rather minor injuries" is NOT the question.
While he sustained rather minor injuries those injuries are not something one would accept willingly and disregard a reaction
The question is whether the likelihood of such "rather minor injuries" is an adequate legal justification for the use of DEADLY force in response.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:29 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
No, but let's assume that he WAS struck a glancing blow. The question then becomes: Is a likely (or even "certain") "glancing blow" adequate to create a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to protect life? If you think (reasonably) that your arm is about to be broken, does that (correct) belief justify the use of DEADLY force in response?
Wrong. That is not the standard. I’m beginning to think you may not be Hank. A lawyer, even a small town family law guy, should not be so consistently wrong on legal questions.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:29 pm to IvoryBillMatt
I have had worse injuries shutting the fridge door with my hip.
-Jacob Frey
-Jacob Frey
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:30 pm to McLemore
quote:
I don’t understand how the angry virtue-mob can argue against this here. They truly live in unreality.
They don't want it to be true. It's become a manifestation of their hatred of Trump and subsequently ICE.
This is the same party that fought tooth and nail to label Melissa Hortman's assassin as MAGA.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:30 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
The question is whether the likelihood of such "rather minor injuries" is an adequate legal justification for the use of DEADLY force in response.
Wrong again. The standard is whether the officer reasonably believed he or others were in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm. She hit him with an SUV. You’re so disingenuous. B
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:31 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
"True Believers" from each side
Stop pretending this is some subjective thing.
There is clear proof in this case, and the officer had every reason to feel threatened with great bodily harm. It was reasonable for him to feel that way.
And that is all that matters in making this a legal self defense scenario.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:33 pm to David_DJS
quote:I am uncertain why the football analogy is so important to you, but ...
Are you arguing that if there's an angle that clearly shows the ball crossing the goal line, it's not necessarily going to be called a TD?
My understanding of the rule is that the "call on the field" (whether "TD" or "no TD") can only be overturned by instant replay ... if the video review shows CONCLUSIVELY that the call made "on the field" was wrong.
If one review angle appears to show a TD and other angle appears to show "no TD," it is a judgment call for the replay ref as to whether "conclusive evicence" exists.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:35 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Exactly. That activity by that driver must stop before more drivers feel it is okay to behave that way.
People, especially liberals and marxist, even those programmed, will react differently when they suspect harm or death will be the result of their actions.
People, especially liberals and marxist, even those programmed, will react differently when they suspect harm or death will be the result of their actions.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:36 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
If you think (reasonably) that your arm is about to be broken, does that (correct) belief justify the use of DEADLY force in response?
look at the Trayvon Martin case. Did the jury believe it is was reasonable for the white hispanic to allow Trayvon to continue bashing his skull into the concrete, and only use lethal force when he was clinically moments from death?
So it depends on if you reasonably believe the person who broke your arm will continue breaking things until you are dead, and at what moment might you be incapacitated beyond the point of self defense.
But we aren't talking about a broken arm. We are talking about a fricking lunatic trying to run you over in a 4000lb SUV.
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 1:38 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:37 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Wasn’t aware that someone could have insight into what amount of injury they would receive in a car hitting them to gauge whether lethal force should be applied on a perp that is causing the potential injury on him or another person, law enforcement or public. That kind of insight would be valuable wouldn’t it
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:38 pm to Nosevens
Its actually a ludicrous point. Ironically coming from a self-described intellectual.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:40 pm to Vacherie Saint
Key words being self-described of course
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:40 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
look at the Trayvon Martin case. Did the jury believe it is was reasonable for the white hispanic to allow Trayvon to continue bashing his skull into the concrete, and only use lethal force when he was clinically moments from death?
Speaking of that thug, didn't Obama speak out in defense of him during the investigation?
Hmmmmm????
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:40 pm to Smeg
quote:
I still haven't had a leftist explain what shooting the tires of a vehicle 6 inches in front of you accomplishes.
It's a joke, making fun of the "shoot them in the leg" self defense argument.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:41 pm to hogcard1964
so did every dem on here... including Hank.
But that was (D)ifferent
But that was (D)ifferent
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:41 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
The question is whether the likelihood of such "rather minor injuries" is an adequate legal justification for the use of DEADLY force in response.
This is lame even for you.
“Rather minor injuries” is in no way a part of the analysis. Most reasonable people are going to reasonably fear death or great bodily harm in the event someone else is driving a vehicle at them
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:42 pm to BBONDS25
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:42 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Yes, it is.quote:Wrong. That is not the standard.
let's assume that he WAS struck a glancing blow. The question then becomes: Is a likely (or even "certain") "glancing blow" adequate to create a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to protect life?
Did the agent reasonably believe that the use of deadly force was necessary to protect life (or prevent serious bodily injury)?
Since we stipulated "relatively minor injuries" above, the parenthetical language does not come into play here.
But just for the fun of the discussion ... If an LEO knows with 100% certainty that he will receive "minor injuries" (and nothing more) unless he first uses DEADLY force, does that knowledge constitute legal cause for the use of deadly force?
OPW, can he kill a suspect to prevent a skinned knee?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:43 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
if the video review shows CONCLUSIVELY that the call made "on the field" was wrong.
“One angle clearly shows the ball crossing the goal line”
Page 4 of 35
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News