- 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 1:43 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:43 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
If one review angle appears to show a TD and other angle appears to show "no TD," it is a judgment call for the replay ref as to whether "conclusive evicence" exists.
You don't know what you're talking about. If there is a single angle, meaning video evidence, that clearly shows the ball crossing the plane, it's called a TD.
quote:
I am uncertain why the football analogy is so important to you, but
It's not important. I'm just responding to nonsense that you posted about it.
0
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:43 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
fricks sakes hank. You sound like an idiot as usual.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:44 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
You're reaching so hard.
Just quit. The bitch deserved to die.
Just quit. The bitch deserved to die.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:45 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Did the agent reasonably believe that the use of deadly force was necessary to protect life
yes. he shot her in the face.
next question.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:45 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
It doesn't embarrass you in the least to shill to this degree because "your side" tells you OMB does it?
says a lot about you.
You know you could just choose to remain silent and have us wonder if you are a fool instead.
says a lot about you.
You know you could just choose to remain silent and have us wonder if you are a fool instead.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:48 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Yes, it is.
Wrong. The standard is exactly what I posted. The severity of the injuries are irrelevant to the reasonableness of the officers belief he or others were in imminent danger. This is 1L year level criminal law, Hank. Stop being so disingenuous.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:48 pm to jchamil
quote:If the vehicle is being driven "at" them, very likely so.
Most reasonable people are going to reasonably fear death or great bodily harm in the event someone else is driving a vehicle at them
Whether the Good vehicle was being driven "at" the agent lies at the heart of this analysis.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:49 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
If an LEO knows with 100% certainty that he will receive "minor injuries" (and nothing more)
The standard is reasonable belief great bodily harm. Read the statute and stop making yourself look like a fool.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:50 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
You are such a disingenuous piece of shite.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:51 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
But just for the fun of the discussion ... If an LEO knows with 100% certainty that he will receive "minor injuries" (and nothing more) unless he first uses DEADLY force, does that knowledge constitute legal cause for the use of deadly force?
This is fantasy but I'll play - if a LEO knows with 100% certainty he'll sustain only a scrape or something like that, he does not have cause to use deadly force - assuming there is no other person that could be in the way of the threat.
However, in the real world - that cop had no idea how severe his injuries could be. FFS over 10,000 people die every year from falling on the ice. It would take scant impact from a vehicle to knock him off balance.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:51 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Whether the Good vehicle was being driven "at" the agent lies at the heart of this analysis.
Wrong. The entire analysis is whether the officer reasonably feared imminent harm. No matter how many BS times you try to complicate it…the standard is the standard. Take your L and move on.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:53 pm to BBONDS25
That video closes the case. There won't be any further investigation.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:53 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Whether the Good vehicle was being driven "at" the agent lies at the heart of this analysis.
I would imagine the guy in front the vehicle, who was hit by it as it advanced towards him, probably felt as though it was coming "at" him.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:55 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
The question is whether the likelihood of such "rather minor injuries" is an adequate legal justification for the use of DEADLY force in response.
This is only reasonable if you have hindsight to know that he will be hit only once. She came to that street looking to engage with ICE. Not unreasonable to assume she came with intent of hurting and killing a federal agent and wouldn’t stop until she succeeded
If you intentionally run into a fed agent once my reasonable assumption is that you will do it again and again.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:55 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Whether the Good vehicle was being driven "at" the agent lies at the heart of this analysis.
No, it isn’t. fricking liar.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:56 pm to Smeg
Relentless won't give up until we know what the lady who's brains were being snacked on by the dog in the back seat was ACTUALLY thinking.
I'm sure he'll be happy to take the wildebeest wife's best guess as well.
I'm sure he'll be happy to take the wildebeest wife's best guess as well.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:57 pm to BBONDS25
quote:You are correct that HINDSIGHT as to the injuries is irrelevant, but you are not paying attention to the hypothetical. The hypo assumes that the agent KNEW he was facing "rather minor injuries" rather than death or severe bodily injury for himself (or, theoretically, others).
The severity of the injuries are irrelevant to the reasonableness of the officers belief he or others were in imminent danger.
Again, if the agent KNEW that he was facing only "rather minor injuries," is the use of deadly force justified? If the agent KNOWS that the suspect is swinging only a nerf bat at his head, is the agent justified in shooting the suspect?
You know damned well that it is not and that he is not.
So the NEXT question is whether the agent in this case had ENOUGH information to form a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to prevent death (or severe bodily injury).
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:57 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Whether he would have WANTED to allow himself to sustain "rather minor injuries" is NOT the question.
“Your honor, the bullet only grazed the officer and, as such, we do not believe he was justified in returning fire.”
Posted on 1/12/26 at 1:58 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Why cling to your idiotic hypothetical bullshite?
Your n next question was answered in the video.
Your n next question was answered in the video.
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 2:00 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
So the NEXT question is whether the agent in this case had ENOUGH information to form a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to prevent
Nope. It’s not that the response prevents the serious bodily injury or death. It’s that the deadly force response is justified.
If a police officer is being shot at and is hit and sustains serious bodily injury, it doesn’t mean that he can’t fire his gun because he’s already suffered serious bodily injury.
The Ice agent could’ve completely missed the driver and his response is still warranted.
Page 5 of 35
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News