- 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 2:00 pm to jammajin
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:00 pm to jammajin
quote:Her state of mind is irrelevant.
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.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:01 pm to the808bass
quote:
The Ice agent could’ve completely missed the driver and his response is still warranted.
Thankfully he's a "Good" shot.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:01 pm to Jbird
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 on 1/12/26 at 2:01 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Your hypothetical is irrelevant as well
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:02 pm to the808bass
quote:Not remotely my argument. Don't be an idiot.quote:“Your honor, the bullet only grazed the officer and, as such, we do not believe he was justified in returning fire.”
Whether he would have WANTED to allow himself to sustain "rather minor injuries" is NOT the question.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:02 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Her state of mind is irrelevant
as. apparently, is yours
as. apparently, is yours
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:02 pm to the808bass
Using a hypothetical to try to convince people the shooter couldn't be positive his life was in danger.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:03 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
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 on 1/12/26 at 2:03 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
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 on 1/12/26 at 2:03 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
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 on 1/12/26 at 2:05 pm to Jbird
quote:
Grazed him
Something something cell phone
Shoot the tires out!
Yup. That's what they're going with.......albeit unsucessfully.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:05 pm to the808bass
quote:If course NOT.quote:It kind of is your argument.
Not remotely my argument.
If the police officer knows he’s only going to be grazed by the shot, can he fire? Of course.
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 on 1/12/26 at 2:06 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
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 on 1/12/26 at 2:06 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
lol. Glad you said that out loud.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:07 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
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 on 1/12/26 at 2:08 pm to idlewatcher
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 on 1/12/26 at 2:09 pm to JimEverett
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?
BTW........... no chance any of that changes if the driver does in fact have stuffed animals in their glove box, right?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:10 pm to the808bass
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.
Glad you said that out loud.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:11 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
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?
Popular
Back to top


2





