- 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: Two things can be true at the same time
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No. I'm asking for your analysis of the justification
I've not remotely attempted such "justification." I've said WE DON'T KNOW. We have an abridged clip. You are citing that abridged clip as somehow definitive. Don't be naive.
History:
Renee Good just drove up, was waiting for a couple of cars to pass, and then wanted to innocently go on her way. After all, that is what the selectively cropped videos suggested, for days. Her poor wife was nothing but an innocent bystander.
The fact is you have no clue as to what that woman had been doing for the hour leading up to that clip. You have no clue as to whether she had been repeatedly instructed to clear the area after interfering with LEOs doing their job. You seem to presume she was something of a harmless unthreatening sot who had little or nothing to do with the LEOs actions.
Your assumptions frankly come across as highly unlikely.
Are they possible?
Sure.
Are they probable?
No.
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 4:17 pm
1
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:16 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The fact is you have no clue as to what that woman had been doing for the hour leading up to that clip.
That is completely irrelevant to the discussion about the shove.
quote:
You have no clue as to whether she had been repeatedly instructed to clear the area after interfering with LEOs doing their job.
Also not relevant.
quote:
You seem to presume she was something of a harmless unthreatening sot who had little or nothing to do with the LEOs actions.
Straw man.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Of course it isn't irrelevant!
That is completely irrelevant to the discussion about the shove.
Have you lost your mind?
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:19 pm to UtahCajun
You probably understand the point, which is that demonizing and disparaging US Citizens that are getting killed by ICE as “deranged” is going to cause problems. It’s a dangerous precedent that anyone skeptical of govt. authoritarianism would object to.
And it doesn’t matter who is in power. We should all expect professionalism, training, and no excuses for poor performance that results in unnecessary death.
But you’re arguing for the sake of what… defending govt. at all costs.
And it doesn’t matter who is in power. We should all expect professionalism, training, and no excuses for poor performance that results in unnecessary death.
But you’re arguing for the sake of what… defending govt. at all costs.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:20 pm to CatahoulaCur
quote:
Let’s stop acting like to admit “this was a mistake”
So you have judged them already?
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:20 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Of course it isn't irrelevant!
Have you lost your mind?
Why would something that happened in the past justify an officer walking up to someone a distance away posing no threat and shoving them?
LEO doesn't get to just go around shoving people. There are rules.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:22 pm to AGGIES
quote:
It’s a dangerous precedent that anyone skeptical of govt. authoritarianism would object to.
I would suggest that the protesters WANT authoritarianism…just with them being allowed to crush their boot heel to our collective necks.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
posing no threat
Since you claim to be an infallible expert, define this as it relates to law enforcement under duress from the lunatic fringe.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That is completely irrelevant to the discussion about the shove.
Oh hell no it isn't. Court ruling:
quote:
"The First Amendment does not provide a license to physically impede federal officers in the performance of their duties. A person who 'gets in the face' of an officer—entering the immediate tactical space of an agent in a manner that a reasonable officer would perceive as a physical threat or an attempt to forcibly interfere—is not engaged in protected assembly."
So regardless of anything prior to that act, that act alone is enough. If there was provious warnings etc..:
quote:
Federal "Safety Zones": In 2025, DHS established temporary "security perimeters" around raid sites. Courts have largely upheld these, ruling that the government's interest in officer safety outweighs a bystander’s right to assemble within the immediate "work zone" of an arrest.
"totality of the circumstances" established in Barnes v. Felix.
THAT alone from the SCOTUS says you are wrong.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:26 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
Since you claim to be an infallible expert, define this as it relates to law enforcement under duress from the lunatic fringe.
An unarmed woman standing more than an arm's distance away from LEO poses no threat to them
She has exposed hands and no weapon
She cannot physically touch the LEO
She is not approaching LEO
Explain how she can be a threat.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:27 pm to BCreed1
quote:
The First Amendment does not provide a license to physically impede federal officers i
Doesn't apply
quote:
A person who 'gets in the face' of an officer
Doesn't apply
quote:
he government's interest in officer safety outweighs a bystander’s right to assemble within the immediate "work zone" of an arrest.
Doesn't apply
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
2 1/2 steps needed from the officer to close the distance, full extension of the arms to shove her down. If this were an NFL game that would be considered a football move and OPI, respectively.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:29 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
I would suggest that the protesters WANT authoritarianism…just with them being allowed to crush their boot heel to our collective necks.
Just talk to someone. Like in the pre-algorithm days.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Doesn't apply
Sure it does. I will take court rulings and what they say over the PT wannabe "expert".
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:31 pm to BCreed1
quote:
I will take court rulings and what they say over the PT wannabe "expert".
The cases have to apply to the facts. The facts of the woman being shoved apply to none of the stuff you posted.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Real life, unlike your courtroom, works on that premise. Real life perception, unburdened by the past, is referred to as stupidity. In Court, it is referred to as prohibition against character evidence.
Why would something that happened in the past justify ...
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Explain how she can be a threat.
Why does she have to be a threat? Can't she simply be standing where she doesn't belong, where she's been instructed to move off from?
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:40 pm to David_DJS
quote:
Why does she have to be a threat?
IF she posed a threat, the LEO would be justified to approach and engage in force without other provocation to secure the safety of themselves and others.
quote:
Can't she simply be standing where she doesn't belong, where she's been instructed to move off from?
To detain her? Possibly
To shove her? No.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:41 pm to David_DJS
quote:Negative.
Can't she simply be standing where she doesn't belong
That wouldn't, in and of itself, have called for what SFP would categorize as "an assault."
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:42 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
You can be for the strategy and enforcement while also admitting mistakes in execution. Zealots will disagree
I mean the shoot can be a mistake in retrospect and still legally justified.
Zealots will disagree.
Page 7 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News