- 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: The definitive video showing Good's vehicle striking the agent
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:18 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:18 pm to IvoryBillMatt
If she doesn't hit him, his arm doesn't move. Contributing factor in her own death.
0
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:19 pm to Jbird
Wheels pointed straight ahead and accelerating at the officer, until she is shot in the face.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:19 pm to Auburn1968
quote:Grazed, cell phone, his fault!
On his body cam video, you can hear him taking the hit.
Retards everywhere still thinking this count was in the right.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:19 pm to David_DJS
quote:Not even how it works in football "instant replay."quote:Well, if one angle shows the ball clearly crossing the plane of the goal line but another doesn't, what's the call?
This video was the FIRST version released. From this angle, it certainly DOES appear that the vehicle struck him.
In the video taken from the other angle (driver's side), it appears clear that contact (if any) with the vehicle was minimal.
Touchdown 100% of the time.
In that case, the result of the review is entirely dependent upon the initial ruling on the field. Is there "conclusive evidence" that the initial ruling was wrong?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:20 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
Something I never noticed before but it looks like he’s losing his footing as he begins to initially
Same. My apologies for not realizing how much danger he was in. Given the conditions, I don't think he could have stepped aside. OTOH, if it had been dry pavement, he might not have slid out of the way.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:20 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:21 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:She wouldn't have spun and she would have tagged him clean.
OTOH, if it had been dry pavement, he might not have slid out of the way.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:21 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
An individual making a life or death decision to use lethal force CAN ONLY accurately assess the severity of the threat AFTER he has either A) survived the threat or B) got run tf over and killed. By then its too late. For example, I may very likely survive a gunshot wound from a small caliber firearm, but I have ZERO responsibility to refrain from defending myself until the actual lethality of that threat is later established. As long as the threat to life risk is objectively reasonable, use of lethal force can apply. Minnesota law clearly supports this particular use of force.
The cornerstone of use of lethal force is predicated on the "reasonable person's" perceived threat of imminent death. Not the resulting condition of the victim.
The cornerstone of use of lethal force is predicated on the "reasonable person's" perceived threat of imminent death. Not the resulting condition of the victim.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:22 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:22 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Not even how it works in football "instant replay."
In that case, the result of the review is entirely dependent upon the initial ruling on the field. Is there "conclusive evidence" that the initial ruling was wrong?
This statement is 100% incorrect.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:22 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
In the video taken from the other angle (driver's side), it appears clear that contact (if any) with the vehicle was minimal.
Well that settles it. Send out the Minnesota National Guard to fight ICE.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:23 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
An individual making a life or death decision to use lethal force CAN ONLY accurately assess the severity of the threat AFTER he has either A) survived the threat or B) got run tf over and killed. By then its too late.
I don’t understand how the angry virtue-mob can argue against this here. They truly live in unreality.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:25 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
the result of the review is entirely dependent upon the initial ruling on the field.
what??
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:25 pm to McLemore
As icing on the cake, Minnesota’s law Specifically notes that peace officers can only be held to the standard of what they know or perceived at the time of the event. Hindsight evaluations of the situation are not to be used in determining the appropriateness of the officers response.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:26 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Is there "conclusive evidence" that the initial ruling was wrong?
Are you arguing that if there's an angle that clearly shows the ball crossing the goal line, it's not necessarily going to be called a TD?
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:26 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
He caught the hood of the suv in the chest. I know that hurt like frick
Yup. Of all the apparently (some were just legal technicalities) stupid things I said, the one I truly regret is that I said the agent wasn't really hurt because he walked with ease after the incident.
Boy was I wrong. Boss, all the way round. Better man than me. Much respect.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:26 pm to BBONDS25
quote:No, but let's assume that he WAS struck a glancing blow.
You admitted (he?) was struck. End of story.
The question then becomes:
Is a likely (or even "certain") "glancing blow" adequate to create a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary to protect life?
If you think (reasonably) that your arm is about to be broken, does that (correct) belief justify the use of DEADLY force in response?
And before the usual dimwits start arguing that I am "supporting" the driver, clearly I am not. She should have complied with the reasonable command to exit the vehicle, and it was entirely wrong of her to attempt to escape in her vehicle.
But neither of those "facts" works to justify the use of deadly force.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:26 pm to McLemore
The commies on the OT are not going to like this. They are not going to like this one bit.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:27 pm to McLemore
the mob hasn't thought this through. They want you to believe its reasonable to ignore your duty as an officer and rights as a citizen, allow the 2-ton SUV strike you, wait to see if you survive, then hope the justice system steps in.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:28 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
If you think (reasonably) that your arm is about to be broken, does that (correct) belief justify the use of DEADLY force in response?
Wasn't this covered in Rittenhouse's trial and everybody not insane agreed that the prosecution was full of shite in arguing, "sometimes, you've just got to take your beating"?
Page 3 of 35
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News