Started By
Message

re: The definitive video showing Good's vehicle striking the agent

Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:00 pm to
Posted by RelentlessAnalysis
AggieHank Alter
Member since Oct 2025
2968 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:00 pm to
quote:

Relentless won't give up until we know what the lady who's brains were being snacked on by the dog in the back seat was ACTUALLY thinking.
Her state of mind is irrelevant.
Posted by hogcard1964
Alabama
Member since Jan 2017
19904 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:01 pm to
quote:

The Ice agent could’ve completely missed the driver and his response is still warranted.


Thankfully he's a "Good" shot.
Posted by the808bass
The Lou
Member since Oct 2012
128779 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:01 pm to
quote:

Why cling to your idiotic hypothetical bullshite?


Because he’s sure he’s right and the board is wrong. He will try to back into any argument that supports that.
Posted by Jbird
Shoot the tires out!
Member since Oct 2012
90587 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:01 pm to
Your hypothetical is irrelevant as well
Posted by RelentlessAnalysis
AggieHank Alter
Member since Oct 2025
2968 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:02 pm to
quote:

quote:

Whether he would have WANTED to allow himself to sustain "rather minor injuries" is NOT the question.
“Your honor, the bullet only grazed the officer and, as such, we do not believe he was justified in returning fire.”
Not remotely my argument. Don't be an idiot.
Posted by jammajin
Member since Jul 2024
1986 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:02 pm to
Her state of mind is irrelevant


as. apparently, is yours
Posted by Jbird
Shoot the tires out!
Member since Oct 2012
90587 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:02 pm to
Using a hypothetical to try to convince people the shooter couldn't be positive his life was in danger.
Posted by the808bass
The Lou
Member since Oct 2012
128779 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:03 pm to
quote:

Not remotely my argument. Don't be an idiot.


It kind of is your argument.

If the police officer knows he’s only going to be grazed by the shot, can he fire? Of course.

Posted by JimEverett
Member since May 2020
2402 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:03 pm to
quote:

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?


If you are stipulating that in the abstract - as in some sort of hypothetical thought experiment - then no. The hypothetical guarantees that given that the LEO knows he will not suffer death or serious bodily injury.

However, assuming he knows this in the real world he may still have a reasonable belief that a person fleeing arrest, and that has shown a propensity of being anti-LEO, is a danger to others then the LEO can use deadly force.
Posted by hogcard1964
Alabama
Member since Jan 2017
19904 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:03 pm to
quote:

Not remotely my argument. Don't be an idiot.


Is your argument that nobody really knew of her intentions when she hit him?

Well no shite. ...but she did.
Posted by idlewatcher
Planet Arium
Member since Jan 2012
96969 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:05 pm to
quote:

Grazed him

Something something cell phone

Shoot the tires out!


Yup. That's what they're going with.......albeit unsucessfully.
Posted by RelentlessAnalysis
AggieHank Alter
Member since Oct 2025
2968 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:05 pm to
quote:

quote:

Not remotely my argument.
It kind of is your argument.

If the police officer knows he’s only going to be grazed by the shot, can he fire? Of course.
If course NOT.

If the agent knows definitely that he will only be "grazed," he could NOT hold a reasonable belief that his life would be in danger ... and he use of deadly force would thus NOT be legally justified.
Posted by jchamil
Member since Nov 2009
19485 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:06 pm to
quote:

If the vehicle is being driven "at" them, very likely so.

Whether the Good vehicle was being driven "at" the agent lies at the heart of this analysis.


The pretzel gets even more twisty

This is actually incredible to watch your legal analysis here
Posted by the808bass
The Lou
Member since Oct 2012
128779 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:06 pm to
lol. Glad you said that out loud.
Posted by Jbird
Shoot the tires out!
Member since Oct 2012
90587 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:06 pm to
Brilliant!
Posted by captainFid
Never apologize to barbarism
Member since Dec 2014
10557 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:07 pm to
quote:

"True Believers" from each side will all insist that THEIR interpretation of the videos is the correct one and that anyone seeing the matter differently is a political hack for the other side. Welcome to modern America.


True believers of the progressive left are welcome to come from another state, inject themselves into a police action, violate the traffic ordinance by blocking traffic on a busy city street, taunt and ignore law enforcement orders then duplicate her 'escape' manuver, to the level, including 'minimal' contact with an officer [who has his service weapon leveled at you]...

Let's see how it works out.
Posted by hogcard1964
Alabama
Member since Jan 2017
19904 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:08 pm to
quote:

Grazed him

Something something cell phone

Shoot the tires out!



Yup. That's what they're going with.......albeit unsucessfully.


Lol

I like this.

Don't forget "her intentions"
Posted by jammajin
Member since Jul 2024
1986 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:09 pm to
excellent analysis and summary which will be immediately dismissed by Relentless in his quest to muddy the water and look like an even larger buffoon than he already does.


BTW........... no chance any of that changes if the driver does in fact have stuffed animals in their glove box, right?

Posted by RelentlessAnalysis
AggieHank Alter
Member since Oct 2025
2968 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:10 pm to
quote:

Glad you said that out loud.
You are generally not an idiot, so I am a bit surprised that you do not agree with the premise that someone who definitively KNOWS he is not in serious danger is not allowed to kill the person who is about to NOT hurt him.
Posted by TDTOM
Member since Jan 2021
25893 posts
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:11 pm to
quote:

You are generally not an idiot, so I am a bit surprised that you do not agree with the premise that someone who definitively KNOWS he is not in serious danger is not allowed to kill the person who is about to NOT hurt him.


Why do you think this is important?
Jump to page
Page First 4 5 6 7 8 ... 35
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 6 of 35Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram