- 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: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:43 am to djsdawg
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:43 am to djsdawg
In 111, the word “forcibly” modifies every verb that follows it.
So the statute actually reads as:
forcibly assaults
forcibly resists
forcibly opposes
forcibly impedes
forcibly intimidates
forcibly interferes
“Forcibly” isn’t just a word you gloss over. It requires actual physical force, a threat of physical force, or conduct that creates an immediate risk of physical harm. So simply saying “she interfered” doesn’t satisfy the statute. The real question is: what did she do that was forcible?
Where is the force? Where is the threat of force? What physical action meets that legal requirement? And you can’t say that her vehicle that was pointed away from them was the force.
So the statute actually reads as:
forcibly assaults
forcibly resists
forcibly opposes
forcibly impedes
forcibly intimidates
forcibly interferes
“Forcibly” isn’t just a word you gloss over. It requires actual physical force, a threat of physical force, or conduct that creates an immediate risk of physical harm. So simply saying “she interfered” doesn’t satisfy the statute. The real question is: what did she do that was forcible?
Where is the force? Where is the threat of force? What physical action meets that legal requirement? And you can’t say that her vehicle that was pointed away from them was the force.
3
Posted on 1/11/26 at 12:11 pm to rwestmore7
quote:to knowingly and intentionally use any form of barricade, including a motor vehicle, as part of a crime, obstruction and refusal to follow a lawful order, is a use of force. It is definitely not passive because of the intent and use of a physical barrier therefore it is forcibly
Forcibly” isn’t just a word you gloss over. It requires actual physical force, a threat of physical force, or conduct that creates an immediate risk of physical harm. So simply saying “she interfered” doesn’t satisfy the statute. The real question is: what did she do that was forcible?
Where is the force? Where is the threat of force? What physical action meets that legal requirement? And you can’t say that her vehicle that was pointed away from them was the force.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 12:59 pm to I20goon
“Using a vehicle as a barricade” only becomes forcible under 111 if there is actual force or a threat of force against the officer and the officer is already engaged in the lawful performance of official duties as to that person.
Intent alone does not convert presence or refusal into a felony. The statute requires forcible conduct, not just “I think they meant to interfere.”
Intent alone does not convert presence or refusal into a felony. The statute requires forcible conduct, not just “I think they meant to interfere.”
Posted on 1/11/26 at 1:22 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
So she was in reverse is now their excuse? It takes a fraction of a second to go from reverse to drive. To put is plain English, you are in reverse until you’re not which in this case took less than a second.
Here’s the thing. Her reversing is what put the officer in danger in the first place. Her reversing is what put the officer in danger in the first place, Before she reversed. The officer was completely clear of any danger if she moved forward. When she reversed, at a minimum it would have opened up the angle putting the officer in the danger zone. But, her cutting the wheel to the left but the officer directly in front of the car.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 1:27 pm to rwestmore7
Every state covers its own statute. In fact, in every state, individuals are protected from stalking for any means. That's key! Interference with sworn duties. Covered in hundreds of jurisdictions with numerous codes/titles.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 1:29 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
“Using a vehicle as a barricade” only becomes forcible under 111 if there is actual force or a threat of force against the officer and the officer is already engaged in the lawful performance of official duties as to that person. Intent alone does not convert presence or refusal into a felony. The statute requires forcible conduct, not just “I think they meant to interfere.”
Look at this dumb fig playing a dumb lawyer. frick off.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 1:40 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
Using a vehicle as a barricade” only becomes forcible
A good lawyer would destroy this assertion. They had probable cause.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 1:43 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
It requires actual physical force, a threat of physical force, or conduct that creates an immediate risk of physical harm
A crazy person parking sideways with her crazy lesbo antagonist on a street is a threat of physical force.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 1:51 pm to BuckPshrink
quote:
Every state covers its own statute.
quote:
state
Federal agent/state crime? Hmm
Posted on 1/11/26 at 1:52 pm to rwestmore7
You need to quit trying to play lawyer on the internet. You sound retarded.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 1:54 pm to the808bass
Then prove me wrong instead of name calling.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 1:57 pm to bayouvette
quote:
Only one person knows her true intentions in the moment. Unfortunately she put her self in a position where we will never know.
Honestly her intentions don't matter.
Think of it this way, guy pulls a gun on someone with the intention to scare someone, here never intended to pull the trigger. The other guy responds by pulling his own gun and firing. Everyone maybe except crazy liberals would say that was a good shooting.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 1:59 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
Honestly her intentions don't matter.
Correct. When she accelerated her car, it didn’t matter if she was trying to kill the officer or not.
She placed him in the position where he has a reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
This post was edited on 1/11/26 at 2:00 pm
Posted on 1/11/26 at 2:00 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
Federal agent/state crime? Hmm
Qualified immunity.
quote:
Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine in the United States that protects government officials, including police officers, from being held personally liable for constitutional violations unless the violated right was "clearly established" at the time of the incident. This means that officials can only be sued if there is a prior court decision with similar facts that established the unconstitutionality of their actions.
And scene.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 2:05 pm to the808bass
quote:
She placed him in the position where he has a reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury.
As well as his partner that was on the door handle trying to open the door
Posted on 1/11/26 at 2:05 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
forcibly resists
driving a two ton honda pilot in the direction of a police officer after being told to exit the vehicle isn't forcible?
I'm no lawyer but that seems pretty forcible to me. I posted in another thread a cop was killed by a jeep by a kid who stole the jeep, he was unarmed and probably scared of being shot and was just trying to flee, but he ended up getting a life sentence.
LINK
quote:
After reviewing body cam footage of the incident, police said that Harris had at first seemed to be obeying Caprio's order to get out — but then he suddenly got back in his seat and drove straight at her. Caprio was able to fire a single shot into the Jeep's windshield before she was fatally struck.
I know it is Maryland vs Minnesota so maybe the laws are different but that situation looks identical to what happened in Minnesota, the main difference is one cop survived the other died. I also get a driving a stolen car is a crime. But he got a life sentence for murder not auto theft.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 2:06 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
prove me wrong instead of name calling.
Your spin wouldn’t hold up in a court of common sense.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 4:09 pm to rwestmore7
quote:blocking egress is indeed that threat.
“Using a vehicle as a barricade” only becomes forcible under 111 if there is actual force or a threat of force against the officer
quote:and yes, I recognize your posts as a thinly vieled attempt to posit that ICE was not acting lawfully on the belief that they shouldn't even be doing enforcement duties in that neighborhood.
engaged in the lawful performance of official duties as to that person.
All the legal citing you are doing, which is merely parroting the lefts talking points to drill down to that one thing: ICE in the neighborhood is not legal.
Weren't you the guy who started with this was an 'illegal stop' for a 'traffic violation' as the basis for ICE not being in the process of a legal action when the self-defense took place before pivoting to this? Yeah, that was you.
So spare me your citing of legal codes and terrible interpretations of both ICE and the offender (not victim). She put herself in that position knowingly and intentionally and yes- ICE can be in that neighborhood no matter how much you don't like it.
Oh, even if they weren't there for a specific offender with a removal order or another warrant.... they still have a right to investigate "in plain view" without being obstructed and that is included in the list of legal duties.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 4:46 pm to Zach
quote:
I did the math. He's posting 3 times per month since 2007.
Probably does most of his/her posting on DU and this is recess over at that asylum.
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News