- 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 1/15/26 at 6:48 am to RelentlessAnalysis
Posted on 1/15/26 at 6:48 am to RelentlessAnalysis
Having to use physics to attempt to make your point valid is a new level of insane hoops.
All I can say, is wow
All I can say, is wow
0
Posted on 1/15/26 at 6:52 am to mlminbtr
quote:It is the acceleration (and mass) of the officer resulting from the velocity of the car is how you calculate the force of the impact.
The force equation is mass x acceleration. There seems to be confusion regarding acceleration, though. This not the acceleration of the vehicle in the sense of depressing the gas pedal.
For the force equation the use of acceleration, even if the driver had let off on the gas pedal, would be the change in velocity from the movement at the time of impact to the officer who is, relative to the vehicle, virtually standing still, over a matter of microseconds times the mass of the vehicle.
The officer accelerated from rest. Therefore, according to Newton's law of inertia, a force acted upon him.
If you want to use the velocity of the car (at impact) you can calculate the energy or work exerted upon the officer.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 7:06 am to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Do you think a. body that has decelerated just prior to contact exerts the same force as a body that accelerated to that same velocity? The answer is mathematically “no.”
I hope you're better at medicine.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 7:12 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Nonetheless, the OP received correct answers to the question posed.
He also received a lot of incorrect answers. No idea what the ratio is, though.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 7:22 am to RelentlessAnalysis
Look dude, we get it. The point has been made by you violent pricks for over a decade now.
If one of your foot soldiers decides to put the domestic enemy in the crosshairs, you and your ilk really and truly believe that your fellow American, by virtue of the fact that they don't agree with your politics, should just sit there and take it. Whether it is getting run over, shot in the neck, stabbed in the neck on a bus, executed while gardening, whatever.
You want your enemy to just lay down and die. Any retaliation is "fascism".
No point in trying to be something you aren't in the OP. Just admit what you are: a violent degenerate.
If one of your foot soldiers decides to put the domestic enemy in the crosshairs, you and your ilk really and truly believe that your fellow American, by virtue of the fact that they don't agree with your politics, should just sit there and take it. Whether it is getting run over, shot in the neck, stabbed in the neck on a bus, executed while gardening, whatever.
You want your enemy to just lay down and die. Any retaliation is "fascism".
No point in trying to be something you aren't in the OP. Just admit what you are: a violent degenerate.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 7:28 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
the agent is hit
That's all that matters, she tried to hit him and he defended himself. The pseudo-intellectual vomitus of OP's like this are useless.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 7:30 am to Flats
quote:His question was disingenuous, as was any confusion about right or wrong answers.
He also received a lot of incorrect answers.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 7:33 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
His question was disingenuous, as was any confusion about right or wrong answers.
Correct, and like all progressives, the OP knew it.
Again, the point the OP is making is that if one of his foot soldiers targets you, you lay there and die gracefully. If you fight back, you are in the wrong.
That is the entire point of the OP.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 7:36 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
His question was disingenuous,
Almost certainly given the source. I suspect he just wanted to show that people arguing with him were wrong about physics, but who the hell knows.
But ignoring the author it was a legit question with an objectively correct answer, and a lot of nonsense was offered up along with some correct answers.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 8:00 am to Flats
quote:It had nothing to do with physics. His shorts are jammed up by folks pointing out that the ICE Queen was accelerating as she hit the officer. The physics issue was/is a strawman
I suspect he just wanted to show that people arguing with him were wrong about physics
Posted on 1/15/26 at 8:02 am to RelentlessAnalysis
Imagine taking a bullet to the face and becoming a physics word problem for the internet.
That anti ice schooling really paid off.
That anti ice schooling really paid off.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 8:18 am to Clark14
quote:
The "ICE Tactic"
Recent events, particularly a fatal 2026 shooting involving an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer in Minneapolis, have brought this issue into sharp focus. Critics and policing experts have referred to the agent's actions as a pattern or "tactic" that has been used in previous incidents to justify shootings.
Key points regarding the "ICE tactic":
Pattern of Behavior: Videos of multiple incidents suggest a pattern where agents swarm vehicles and then shoot, justifying their actions by claiming the vehicle was used as a weapon.
Policy Omission: Unlike many police departments, the use-of-force policy for ICE (part of the Department of Homeland Security) has lacked a clear instruction for officers to move out of the way of moving vehicles where feasible, an omission that is "at odds with generally recognized best practices in policing".
Legal Challenges: Federal courts analyzing deadly force claims consistently hold that an officer cannot justify a shooting solely by a danger the officer created themselves. The legal standard requires looking at the "totality of the circumstances" leading up to the use of force, including the officer's initial actions.
While federal officials have defended the shootings as justified acts of self-defense, many law enforcement experts and civil liberties advocates argue that intentionally creating an avoidable risk to then use lethal force is not a legitimate policing tactic.
All of the above is irrelevant.
Posted on 1/15/26 at 8:53 am to NC_Tigah
He was trying to be slick. Get the forum to accept the dishonest framework of his question, flame around the issue for a few pages, then hit us with some bullshite ackshywully about "2000lbs @ 2MPH is like getting hit with a pillow".
Except that car weighs twice that and was surely moving 5X faster. Nevermind getting run tf over destroys whatever point he was trying to make about impact.
Except that car weighs twice that and was surely moving 5X faster. Nevermind getting run tf over destroys whatever point he was trying to make about impact.
Posted on 1/16/26 at 9:45 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:Care to pick back up on the physics lesson?
RelentlessAnalysis
Posted on 1/16/26 at 9:51 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
But why is "acceleration" the issue, rather than "velocity?"
Your hunch is correct. Velocity is the issue. But even then the impulse on the agent is not a simple equation using velocity and mass, because he slipped off the car. That took away some unknowable percentage of the blow.
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News