- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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: Physics Question re Good/ICE Incident
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:58 pm to ReauxlTide222
Posted on 1/14/26 at 7:58 pm to ReauxlTide222
Not to low Tboy.
1
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:00 pm to McChowder
quote:Of course not.
justifiable homicide isnt a math equation.
As I clearly said in the OP, some posters were emphasizing that "acceleration" was more important than "velocity" in addressing the danger to the agent.
I wanted to know whether this was accurate.
Why do you people turn even innocuous questions into a battle?
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:01 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Have another downvote.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:02 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Ice patch is hard for dangling stupid.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:03 pm to Jbird
But that makes him genuinely ridiculous
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:04 pm to Jbird
Muh physics
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:05 pm to sgallo3
I did not, just a rough estimate as I don't have exact speed or distance
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:10 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:It might be
As I clearly said in the OP, some posters were emphasizing that "acceleration" was more important than "velocity" in addressing the danger to the agent.
There is a max speed that she could have hit him at. If the tires catch, and she bounces out of there with full traction, the situation would have been extremely life threatening.
Of course you agree.
Being hit at 2 mph is roughly 4x the force of being hit at 1 mph. Now say those tires gripped.
What’s she going? 3? 5? 7 mph?
The math gets dangerous at some point my man.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:14 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:Of course. I said as much above.
If the tires catch, and she bounces out of there with full traction, the situation would have been extremely life threatening. Of course you agree.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:16 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
We will assume for this discussion that the vehicle did indeed hit the agent
We won't assume. It is a provable fact.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:17 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
The officer doesn’t possess the ability to calculate the speed that he’ll be contacted.
For this reason, I contend that acceleration is more important in his decision to shoot than speed he was hit.
For this reason, I contend that acceleration is more important in his decision to shoot than speed he was hit.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:18 pm to ReauxlTide222
Relentless stupid will parse.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:26 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
am genuinely interested as to why a fair number of posters are focused upon "acceleration" rather than "velocity."
Let’s be honest here. Acceleration/velocity study is irrelevant. If there is any of either then the shooting was justified. You can get crazy looking at what is considered intent and all of that crap. She moved her vehicle towards the agent and he shot her. It is as simple as that. She is dead regardless of what we speculate as her intentions. The agent shot her because of his interpretation of her actions. Any other opinions are irrelevant. Enough with this stupid crap. Crazy libtard is dead because she made a decision to end up that way.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:36 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:Come back I want to talk physics
RelentlessAnalysis
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:38 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Of course not.
As I clearly said in the OP, some posters were emphasizing that "acceleration" was more important than "velocity" in addressing the danger to the agent.
I wanted to know whether this was accurate.
Why do you people turn even innocuous questions into a battle?
I think the SUV accelerating can be an aggravating factor legally and can suggest motive (unless you argue she didn't see him standing in front of her vehicle). Therefore acceleration is more important than velocity but not for the same reasons you are suggesting. The question, "which factor could contribute the most harm" is a red herring.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:40 pm to Jbird
“Because her tires spun relentless alter.”
Did anybody shoot at them? Because, you know, you gotta shoot the tires.
Did anybody shoot at them? Because, you know, you gotta shoot the tires.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:41 pm to jammajin
Always shoot the tires!
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:47 pm to TBoy
quote:
assuming the agent was hit at all
frick, another imbecile
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:48 pm to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
force of the hit comes from how quickly the car’s momentum changes during the collision
The SUV didn't visibly decelerate during impact, but the ICE officer shure changed velocity...doesn't that matter more than the vehicle's change in velocity?
If I get hit by a train, the train ain't slowing down, but I will fly off the track.
Posted on 1/14/26 at 8:51 pm to homesicktiger
Pretty sure at this point it’s all the same imbecile.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News