- 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: What’s not being talked about in regards to the shooting
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:13 am to deltaland
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:13 am to deltaland
quote:
One shot through the windshield straight to the dome while being run over by a car. Impressive focus and control
It was a good shot.
Hopefully this stops the violence from the left.
0
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:13 am to IvoryBillMatt
She has a very punchable face. Probably also has a glovebox full of unpaid tickets.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:13 am to VOR
quote:
Bonds, I know you’re smarter than that. C’mon man…
Everything I said was factual. Indisputable. And legally speaking, justifies the shooting. You know it. But will continue to call it something it wasn’t.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:14 am to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
He tries to troll a lot but makes it so obvious that his attempt loses impact.
What did I say that was not factually correct? Be specific.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:15 am to EphesianArmor
quote:
He's really not.
What did I say that was factually incorrect? Don’t know why what I said is meaningful in the eyes of the law? Guarantee you don’t. Moron.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:15 am to EphesianArmor
quote:
Most posters here are reactionary
Leftists on 1/06/26:
"Let's mark this solemn 5 year anniversary in which our Capitol Police hero's put it on the line, saved democracy, and bravely shot an unarmed woman through a door. Moment of silence for these hero's..."
Leftists on 1/07/26, hours later:
"F**k federal police!!!! You can't murder an unarmed woman!!!! We say she wasn't a threat!!!! This is an outrage!!!! Let's go vandalize the Federal building!!!! Start a riot!!!!"
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:25 am to CleverUserName
Psyops and illusions especially work like a charm on already disturbed, hypocritical Lefty minds. But then again, the Right can be just as reactionary, conditioned and fooled to defend their "team" without scrutiny.
Frankly, I'm not sure if either "team" knows for sure what reality "happened" in either case.
Frankly, I'm not sure if either "team" knows for sure what reality "happened" in either case.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:27 am to deltaland
Interfering with ICE is same as interfering with regular LEO
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:32 am to BBONDS25
I’ve not claimed to be a lawyer.
I had just read about it. See link below to an AP article.
The Department of Justice says in its Justice Manual that firearms should not be used simply to disable a moving vehicle. The policy allows deadly force only in limited circumstances, such as when someone in the vehicle is threatening another person with deadly force, or when the vehicle itself is being used in a way that poses an imminent risk and no reasonable alternative exists, including moving out of the vehicle’s path.
The debate over shooting at moving vehicles has been sharpened by high-profile cases, including a 2023 shooting in Ohio in which an officer fired through the windshield of a car in a grocery store parking lot while investigating a shoplifting allegation. The pregnant driver was killed; the officer was later charged and acquitted.
John P. Gross, a professor at the University of Wisconsin School of Law who has written extensively about officers shooting at moving vehicles, said while more departments have added explicit policies regarding use-of-force and moving vehicles, officer training also needs to improve.
“If this woman was blocking the street and a law enforcement operation, they are entitled to arrest her. What they are not entitled to do is to use deadly force to arrest her,” Gross said. “From just watching the video, this seems like an egregious example.”
LINK
I had just read about it. See link below to an AP article.
The Department of Justice says in its Justice Manual that firearms should not be used simply to disable a moving vehicle. The policy allows deadly force only in limited circumstances, such as when someone in the vehicle is threatening another person with deadly force, or when the vehicle itself is being used in a way that poses an imminent risk and no reasonable alternative exists, including moving out of the vehicle’s path.
The debate over shooting at moving vehicles has been sharpened by high-profile cases, including a 2023 shooting in Ohio in which an officer fired through the windshield of a car in a grocery store parking lot while investigating a shoplifting allegation. The pregnant driver was killed; the officer was later charged and acquitted.
John P. Gross, a professor at the University of Wisconsin School of Law who has written extensively about officers shooting at moving vehicles, said while more departments have added explicit policies regarding use-of-force and moving vehicles, officer training also needs to improve.
“If this woman was blocking the street and a law enforcement operation, they are entitled to arrest her. What they are not entitled to do is to use deadly force to arrest her,” Gross said. “From just watching the video, this seems like an egregious example.”
LINK
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:38 am to deltaland
how much of a douche bag people are when celebrating someone being shot in the face?
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:41 am to hawkeye007
quote:
how much of a douche bag people are when celebrating someone being shot in the face?
I watched it happen when a guy, who wasn't breaking the law or trying to run over anyone, was shot in the neck.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:42 am to TenWheelsForJesus
Good points. However, some of them are actually debatable, not 100% certain. Not every moving vehicle fleeing a scene is a threat to other people’s lives. And policies are reviewed and adapted as a result of real world experiences.
As I posted from the AP article:
The Department of Justice says in its Justice Manual that firearms should not be used simply to disable a moving vehicle. The policy allows deadly force only in limited circumstances, such as when someone in the vehicle is threatening another person with deadly force, or when the vehicle itself is being used in a way that poses an imminent risk and no reasonable alternative exists, including moving out of the vehicle’s path.
As I posted from the AP article:
The Department of Justice says in its Justice Manual that firearms should not be used simply to disable a moving vehicle. The policy allows deadly force only in limited circumstances, such as when someone in the vehicle is threatening another person with deadly force, or when the vehicle itself is being used in a way that poses an imminent risk and no reasonable alternative exists, including moving out of the vehicle’s path.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:43 am to EphesianArmor
quote:
Most posters here are reactionary and by default understandably supporting the LEO over the dopey Protestor -- but they are choosing to override what their own eyes should be telling them.
From a legal standpoint, the LEO was 100 percent in the right. Your ignorance to that fact doesn’t change that it’s a fact.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:46 am to AGGIES
quote:
such as when someone in the vehicle is threatening another person with deadly force,
Here is the only part of that article that matters. And that isn’t even fully correct regarding the standard. If the officer reasonably believed that was happening is the standard. The author of that AP article is equally misinformed as you.
This post was edited on 1/8/26 at 10:49 am
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:49 am to hawkeye007
quote:
how much of a douche bag people are when celebrating someone being shot in the face?
Do you feel the same way when someone is shot and killed that's trying to kill any other random innocent person?
Posted on 1/8/26 at 10:49 am to AGGIES
quote:
What they are not entitled to do is to use deadly force to arrest her
Good. Because that’s not what happened.
They tried to arrest her, and then during the course of the arrest, one of the officers had reasonable fear of serious bodily injury and he responded (appropriately from a legal, policy and ethical standpoint) with deadly force.
Posted on 1/8/26 at 11:02 am to BBONDS25
quote:
If the officer reasonably believed that was happening is the standard.
Have you argued these type of cases in court?
Is a test of reasonableness ever applied?
Or do courts just take the officers explanation that they believed it was happening as gospel?
Posted on 1/8/26 at 11:04 am to AGGIES
Posted on 1/8/26 at 11:09 am to CleverUserName
quote:
And again... the left was cheering, laughing, and mocking over Kirk.
So you don't think the OP was doing any of these? If not what is OPs point in your opinion?
This post was edited on 1/8/26 at 11:17 am
Posted on 1/8/26 at 11:12 am to BBONDS25
quote:
From a legal standpoint, the LEO was 100 percent in the right. Your ignorance to that fact doesn’t change that it’s a fact.
Technically? I suppose the LEO can be claimed to have been "protecting himself from "harm" or "assault".
The "fact" however is, he not only didn't take any effort in removing himself from potential harm's way, he foolishly closely approached a moving 3-ton vehicle (driven by a nut) as though it were 150 lb human.
Another "fact" -- using deadly force in this case in the overly aggressive manner he did was unwarranted by any properly trained emotionally stable LEO.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News