- 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 4:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
To detain her? Possibly
To shove her? No.
Hard to believe.
Law enforcement is involved in some operation and a dipshit stands in the way. After telling her to get out of the way more than once, they can't push the fricker out of the way and deal with her later (if she's not smart enough to walk away)? The only possible thing they can do is arrest her?
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 4:44 pm
2
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:43 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Now, who would have DV'd that
Negative.
That wouldn't, in and of itself, have called for what SFP would categorize as "an assault."
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:44 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:Yep. Sad truth.
I mean the shoot can be a mistake in retrospect and still legally justified.
Zealots will disagree.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:45 pm to David_DJS
quote:
Law enforcement is involved in some operation and a dipshit stands in the way.
You're changing the facts both from your question AND the actual situation
quote:
They can't push the fricker out of the way and deal with her later
Sure. That didn't happen, though.
From the post
quote:
An unarmed woman standing more than an arm's distance away from LEO poses no threat to them
They had to go to her to shove her. She wasn't "in the way". They went to her.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
LOL.. It most certainly does. Did you ever decide what the "cut of limit" on time established by the SCOTUS in Barnes?
That's your problem. You think nothing that happened in the minutes, days or weeks before she was shoved matters and the the courts disagree.
Barnes vs Felix:
The Court coined the term "chronological blinders" to describe the lower court's approach. By only looking at the final two seconds of the encounter, the lower court was actually performing a form of hindsight.
That is what you are doing here. But they ruled:
To judge if an officer was "reasonable," you must see what they saw during the entire encounter. You cannot "hermetically seal off" the final moment from the context that created it. If an officer knows a suspect has been acting violently for 10 minutes, that 10-minute history is part of the "split-second" decision-making process.
That's your problem. You think nothing that happened in the minutes, days or weeks before she was shoved matters and the the courts disagree.
Barnes vs Felix:
The Court coined the term "chronological blinders" to describe the lower court's approach. By only looking at the final two seconds of the encounter, the lower court was actually performing a form of hindsight.
That is what you are doing here. But they ruled:
To judge if an officer was "reasonable," you must see what they saw during the entire encounter. You cannot "hermetically seal off" the final moment from the context that created it. If an officer knows a suspect has been acting violently for 10 minutes, that 10-minute history is part of the "split-second" decision-making process.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
She has exposed hands and no weapon
So in addition to being infallible, you also have x-ray vision.
Because nobody ever put a weapon under a coat before.
Not to be disrespectful to the deceased, but the protesters remind me of the granny in Hot Fuzz…she even yells out fascist before shooting.
The Greater Good!
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're changing the facts both from your question AND the actual situation
No, I'm not - because neither of us knows the actual situation.
quote:
They had to go to her to shove her. She wasn't "in the way". They went to her.
How do you know she wasn't in the way?
Just because she was more than arms distance away from LEO doesn't mean she wasn't in the way.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
An unarmed woman standing more than an arm's distance away from LEO poses no threat to them
Writing that, and believing it to be true, illustrates your stupidity.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:47 pm to Ag Zwin
You can legitimately believe that no errors were made but...
So what you are saying is that anyone who disagrees with you is a "zealot".
quote:
Zealots will disagree.
So what you are saying is that anyone who disagrees with you is a "zealot".
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:47 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
So in addition to being infallible, you also have x-ray vision.
Because nobody ever put a weapon under a coat before.
I agree. Police should actually be allowed to shoot people if their hands are visible because we have no way of knowing if they're mutants with extra limbs that can shoot even while two hands are up.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:48 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
I agree. Police should actually be allowed to shoot people if their hands are visible because we have no way of knowing if they're mutants with extra limbs that can shoot even while two hands are up.
They shot the woman in SFP’s description?
Who knew?
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:48 pm to CatahoulaCur
quote:
Two things can be true at the same time
So? It doesn’t mean they both ARE.
This is just a Cheap troll post begging for a ‘both sides’ agreement rather than actually supporting a weak weak point
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:49 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
They shot the woman in SFP’s description?
Who knew?
They would've been legally justified in doing so! What if she had a mechanical exoskeleton that could fire a weapon while she had both hands on her phone?
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:51 pm to CatahoulaCur
And apparently the paid actors constantly interfering in the arrests and operations are never contributory negligent when things go wrong.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:51 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
They would've been legally justified in doing so!
How so?
Are you just an especially violent person?
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:51 pm to BCreed1
quote:
Did you ever decide what the "cut of limit" on time established by the SCOTUS in Barnes?
I quoted the case to educate you. It's limited to the specific incident.
In this case, the incident is the scenario around the shove itself.
quote:
That is what you are doing here.
No. If you had read the cases, you'd know they don't assign a specific time requirement for an incident. There is no min time.
If an incident only takes 2 seconds, then the factors are of those 2 seconds. The incident in Barnes was an incident more than those 2 seconds.
quote:
If an officer knows a suspect has been acting violently for 10 minutes, that 10-minute history is part of the "split-second" decision-making process.
Which page of the ruling states this specifically?
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:52 pm to David_DJS
quote:
How do you know she wasn't in the way?
We literally have the video
The actual operation was across the street, even
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:52 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
Writing that, and believing it to be true, illustrates your stupidity.
I notice you don't address the point and just summarily dismiss it with an ad hom. I wonder why
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:53 pm to CatahoulaCur
quote:
A world exists where ICE are useful, needed, and decent human beings that are doing their job AND the ICE officer made a really big error.
Admitting wrongdoing that the ICE officer acted unjustifiably, does not sour (or should not sour) ICE in general.
Sure, this is true, but the ICE officer didn't act unjustifiably.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 4:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I notice you don't address the point
And you?
How do you know that she presented no danger?
X-ray vision?
Is this you?
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 4:55 pm
Page 8 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News