UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

That it was not an act of treason and an insurrection do you think they would have a moment hesitation spinning the murder of 1 woman by Trumps Ton Ton Macute

(no message)

(no message)

They're really trying. They believe it's possible to have another The Madness of 2020 to "resist." The elected folks from your tribe are trying the most incendiary language to get the peons to use violence against federal employees. This is what the leaders among the radicals do in every place around the world. The radical aristocracy in politics/academia/media rarely put their own asses on the line. Instead, they seek out broken people like the woman who was shot and motivate people like her to carry out the violence for them.

BTW, just a reminder: I had zero sympathy for Ashli Babbitt. Watching this display here of nincompoops twisting themselves into pretzels, attempting to fool people into thinking that this woman didn't put the ICE agent into mortal danger is obscene. Do better.

(no message)

(no message)

A “riot” would fuel the Stasi Administration’s fabricated narrative that federal agents are needed in US cities, especially in blue states.

This is all part of Trump’s intimidation campaign. No doubt Trump will unleash the dogs at polling stations during November midterms.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

You and I can discuss whether this should be or not, but there are examples of police shooting drivers through driver side windows. Depends on whether or not the shooting officer had reasonable fear of serious injury to himself or others, as Conor posted.

It is an objective standard, not 20-20 hindsight.

Here is the syllabus:

Syllabus
Petitioner Graham, a diabetic, asked his friend, Berry, to drive him to a convenience store to purchase orange juice to counteract the onset of an insulin reaction. Upon entering the store and seeing the number of people ahead of him, Graham hurried out and asked Berry to drive him to a friend's house instead. Respondent Connor, a city police officer, became suspicious after seeing Graham hastily enter and leave the store, followed Berry's car, and made an investigative stop, ordering the pair to wait while he found out what had happened in the store. Respondent backup police officers arrived on the scene, handcuffed Graham, and ignored or rebuffed attempts to explain and treat Graham's condition. During the encounter, Graham sustained multiple injuries. He was released when Conner learned that nothing had happened in the store. Graham filed suit in the District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against respondents, alleging that they had used excessive force in making the stop, in violation of "rights secured to him under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983." The District Court granted respondents' motion for a directed verdict at the close of Graham's evidence, applying a four-factor test for determining when excessive use of force gives rise to a § 1983 cause of action, which inquires, inter alia, whether the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain and restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm. Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028. The Court of Appeals affirmed, endorsing this test as generally applicable to all claims of constitutionally excessive force brought against government officials, rejecting Graham's argument that it was error to require him to prove that the allegedly excessive force was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, and holding that a reasonable jury applying the Johnson v. Glick test to his evidence could not find that the force applied was constitutionally excessive.
Held: All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force -- deadly or not -- in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard. Pp. 490 U. S. 392-399.
(a) The notion that all excessive force claims brought under § 1983 are governed by a single generic standard is rejected. Instead, courts must identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed by the challenged application of force, and then judge the claim by reference to the specific constitutional standard which governs that right. Pp. 490 U. S. 393-394.
(b) Claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are most properly characterized as invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right "to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable seizures," and must be judged by reference to the Fourth Amendment's "reasonableness" standard. Pp. 490 U. S. 394-395.
(c) The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.
(d) The Johnson v. Glick test applied by the courts below is incompatible with a proper Fourth Amendment analysis. The suggestion that the test's "malicious and sadistic" inquiry is merely another way of describing conduct that is objectively unreasonable under the circumstances is rejected. Also rejected is the conclusion that, because individual officers' subjective motivations are of central importance in deciding whether force used against a convicted prisoner violates the Eighth Amendment, it cannot be reversible error to inquire into them in deciding whether force used against a suspect or arrestee violates the Fourth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment terms "cruel" and "punishment" clearly suggest some inquiry into subjective state of mind, whereas the Fourth Amendment term "unreasonable" does not. Moreover, the less protective Eighth Amendment standard applies only after the State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions. Pp. 490 U. S. 397-399.
827 F.2d 945, vacated and remanded.


Link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/#tab-opinion-1957951

(no message)

justifies her shooting? The video, which everyone can see, clearly shows her turning the car's whees. to the Right...Away from the officer...NOT at him...BEFORE he shot. Then he was standing directly ALONG SIDE of her when he fired his final shots. Had she intended to strike the officer with her car she would have kept the wheels straight and accelerated forward...That's Not What Happened and everyone can see it.

Again...Blocking Traffic is not a Capital Offense punishable by death...nor is moving one's vehicle to unblock traffic, which witnesses say was what she was told to do.

Given that our President is an unrepentant Felon, Rapist and Fraud, there is deep concern that justice will come from his subservient DOJ in this case...but the American public will not forget what happened to Ms. Good.

Please apologize to the board for misleading us if you meant this to apply to the event in Minnesota. (Apology....rolleyes.)

BTW, driver’s focus was on ICE agent at her driver side window.

Unclear whether driver was aware of moron agent in front of her vehicle.

A thorough and honest investigation is imperative. The Feds under this Administration have already pre-judged what happened and fabricated a narrative.

Officers are trained to shoot drivers in cases such as this. Perhaps you listed the policy to discuss changes to it for future events, but your post supports the officer in this case.

to move her vehicle...she complied by turning her wheels to the right...away from the officer,..yet he shot her. If a fleeing suspect shouldn't be shot at, how on earth does the officer justify shooting her for complying with an order to move...Get it?

Once again, the slow motion video clearly shows Ms. Good turning the wheels to the right before moving forward away from the officer. IMO that officer's only hope of avoiding conviction and prison is a pardon from Trump...which sadly is very likely...because no jury could possibly find that the victim tried to run him down.

What an absolutely Callous Disregard for Human Life we saw displayed by an ICE agent...which mirrors his President's

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

FAFO! MAGA!

A totally predictable outcome of this administration’s policies. And she won’t be the last.

The next admin will certainly dismantle ICE and send most these fat, cowardly goons packing.

And putting themselves in harm’s way without a real understanding of what they are getting into. They are pawns.

(no message)

(no message)

She would be alive if not for her radical, illegal behavior.

Tim Walz is sure going to use her loss to try to save his own skin though - that is slso sad.


Link: https://www.newsmax.com/us/minneapolis-shooting-ice/2026/01/08/id/1241397/

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

The mass mob would assert that her “criminal” status as an unlawful immigrant means that she could be summarily executed.

Yesterday’s events highlight the abuse of power and lack of accountability by this Administration.

Come November, the Board’s MAGA contingent will wonder why they lose 40 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate.

Chris would be enjoying her death.

(no message)