- 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 2:43 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:43 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
If a cop saw a person gun down 10 cops before the cop shot that person there would still be a technical legal question of whether the cop acted reasonably which would theoretically linger until and unless there was a formal fact finder concluding that. Ninethelesd it is obvious.
Similarly, though not as extreme, as when a person fleeing arrest by accelerating their car at an officer, andhitting that officer with the car before the officer uses deadly force.
The reasonableness is obvious.
Similarly, though not as extreme, as when a person fleeing arrest by accelerating their car at an officer, andhitting that officer with the car before the officer uses deadly force.
The reasonableness is obvious.
1
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:44 pm to IvoryBillMatt
The ice agent has no authority. Broooooo
Getting run over by a leftist was the proper response
Getting run over by a leftist was the proper response
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:45 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
The definitive video showing Good's vehicle striking the agent
Seeing that it's not the lead-off story on NBC/ABC/CBS anymore, I'm thinking that the mainstream media has ceded they've lost this one and moved on.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:46 pm to Giantkiller
Not to relentless alter it's not!
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:50 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Yet half the country disagrees with your analysis.
That's why I used the word "unreasonable" - half the country can't tell us what a woman is, and thinks literal Hitler sits in the WH. They are loony tunes, so is it any wonder they arrived at an unreasonable position on this?
It is retarded to argue that a man standing on ice with a vehicle lurching at him could not possibly believe he was at risk for serious bodily injury.
Seriously, this isn't gray. It's black and white.
You asked your hypothetical to here's one for you. If the officer knew with absolute certainty that there was a 1% probability that he was going to be knocked off balance, hit his head on the ice and suffer a serious concussion - do you think he would be justified in using lethal force?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:52 pm to JimEverett
The reasonableness is obvious.
to you maybe.
Relentless has his marching orders.
Relentless and reasonableness are like oil and water.
Relentless is like the WW2 Japanese soldier lost in the jungles. The whole world has moved on but Relentless is still fighting this damn war!!
to you maybe.
Relentless has his marching orders.
Relentless and reasonableness are like oil and water.
Relentless is like the WW2 Japanese soldier lost in the jungles. The whole world has moved on but Relentless is still fighting this damn war!!
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:53 pm to Giantkiller
quote:
Seeing that it's not the lead-off story on NBC/ABC/CBS anymore, I'm thinking that the mainstream media has ceded they've lost this one and moved on.
They know it's over.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:56 pm to hogcard1964
Tx tiger tells me "the population is terorrized" though 
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:57 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
And they say the same of you
Cool. One position is reasonable, one is not. That's why we have the reasonable man tests
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:58 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
up. Of all the apparently (some were just legal technicalities) stupid things I said, the one I truly regret is that I said the agent wasn't really hurt because he walked with ease after the incident.
Boy was I wrong. Boss, all the way round. Better man than me. Much respect.
I think now that the initial emotions of the incident passed, a lot of people can see their knee jerk reaction was wrong. I think it's plain to see now this officer is way more fortunate to have survived than initially believed.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:09 pm to David_DJS
quote:In my opinion, were I on that jury, I would NOT find that to be a reasonable use of force.
If the officer knew with absolute certainty that there was a 1% probability that he was going to be knocked off balance, hit his head on the ice and suffer a serious concussion - do you think he would be justified in using lethal force?
A one-percent chance of serious bodily injury would NOT, in my view, remotely justify the use of deadly force. A 100-percent chance, on the other hand, would absolutely justify it.
Where is the hypothetical cut-off point between those two extremes? I honestly don't know. Case-by-case analysis, I suppose.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:13 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
In my opinion, were I on that jury, I would NOT find that to be a reasonable use of force.
Just my opinion, but...
He did it all for the nookie
(Come on) the nookie
(Come on) so you can take that cookie
And stick it up your (yeah)
Stick it up your (yeah)
Stick it up your (yeah)
Stick it up your
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:17 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
A one-percent chance of serious bodily injury would NOT, in my view, remotely justify the use of deadly force. A 100-percent chance, on the other hand, would absolutely justify it.
Well, keep in mind the use of deadly force doesn't mean the perpetrator is going to die, right?
So your argument is that a person is obligated to run the risk of severe injury because someone else is acting like an idiot, unless that risk is within the realm of certainty?
quote:
here is the hypothetical cut-off point between those two extremes? I honestly don't know. Case-by-case analysis, I suppose.
Why would it be case-by-case? That sounds fricky.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:19 pm to IvoryBillMatt
In boxing you can tell when a punch connects by the head movement. You can see his torso absorbs the impact by the way his head moves.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:21 pm to David_DJS
quote:I said nothing of the sort.
So your argument is that a person is obligated to run the risk of severe injury because someone else is acting like an idiot, unless that risk is within the realm of certainty?
To the contrary, I specifically said that "certainty" was not a requirement. I am just honest-enough to admit that I cannot say in advance WHAT LEVEL of confidence would be required to justify the use of deadly force.
Look, if YOU think that a one-percent chance you might get hurt is ENOUGH to justify killing someone, you be you Dave. But it is not enough for me.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:21 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
A one-percent chance of serious bodily injury would NOT, in my view, remotely justify the use of deadly force. A 100-percent chance, on the other hand, would absolutely justify it.
How the frick could any attack meet that standard? Someone swinging a knife or pointing a gun at you isn't a 100% chance if they haven't killed you yet. What do they have to do? Wait until a gun is pressed against their temple and the trigger is pulled BEFORE they can use deadly force?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:25 pm to Smeg
quote:You really don't read that well, do you?quote:How the frick could any attack meet that standard?
In my opinion, were I on that jury, I would NOT find that to be a reasonable use of force.
A one-percent chance of serious bodily injury would NOT, in my view, remotely justify the use of deadly force. A 100-percent chance, on the other hand, would absolutely justify it.
Where is the hypothetical cut-off point between those two extremes? I honestly don't know. Case-by-case analysis, I suppose.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:26 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Look, if YOU think that a one-percent chance you might get hurt is ENOUGH to justify killing someone, you be you Dave. But it is not enough for me.
It's not a matter of "life or death".
Law enforcement officers are justified in using deadly force when they have a reasonable belief that it is necessary to protect themselves or others from an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:38 pm to hogcard1964
quote:And the question in the series of posts (between the adults) that you have interrupted is whether a ONE PERCENT chance gives rise to such a "reasonable belief."
Law enforcement officers are justified in using deadly force when they have a reasonable belief that it is necessary to protect themselves or others from an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury.
My porcine friend, you are out of your depth in this discussion. Let the adults talk.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:40 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Clearly shows him shooting AFTER he was bumped
Page 9 of 35
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News