SouthEndzoneTiger
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | Louisiana |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | LSU Sports |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 11455 |
| Registered on: | 3/5/2008 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: CNN castigates Trump & Noem for jumping to conclusions, had no issue with Obama doing same
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 1/8/26 at 1:14 pm to tigersbb
quote:
CNN and their selected guests are railing at President Trump and Kristi Noem making initial comments justifying the shooting death of Renee Good before the investigation is complete.
But they are OK with Frey and Walz doing so? :confused:
0
re: What’s not being talked about in regards to the shooting
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 1/8/26 at 1:04 pm to MonteCarleaux
quote:
I might encourage you to consider whether or not we should scrutinize when a LEO does it differently than when a civilian does it. I don’t understand why these are being compared in the same light. Carrying deadly force professionally comes with a higher level of responsibility.
It's obvious you haven't a clue as to what my statement was in response to. Because the comparison is absolutely spot on. Here, let me help you:
quote:
hawkeye007
how much of a douche bag people are when celebrating someone being shot in the face?
quote:
SET
I watched it happen when a guy, who wasn't breaking the law or trying to run over anyone, was shot in the neck.
re: What’s not being talked about in regards to the shooting
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 1/8/26 at 12:48 pm to hawkeye007
quote:
same to everyone saying she was trying to kill him
She literally hit him with her car.
re: What’s not being talked about in regards to the shooting
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 1/8/26 at 10:41 am to hawkeye007
quote:
how much of a douche bag people are when celebrating someone being shot in the face?
I watched it happen when a guy, who wasn't breaking the law or trying to run over anyone, was shot in the neck.
re: What’s not being talked about in regards to the shooting
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 1/8/26 at 9:45 am to Enadious
quote:
And IF the officer wouldn't have put himself in the line of fire (in front of the vehicle), then we wouldn't be dealing with this shite-show. He wouldn't have stood in front of a person with a loaded weapon, why in the hell would he stand in front of a vehicle?
Because they were trying to arrest her. She had escalated to the point of being arrested, but apparently she hadn't shown aggression. So he stood in front of her car so she couldn't escape arrest. But she chose to try to run him over. That's on her, not him.
re: What’s not being talked about in regards to the shooting
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 1/8/26 at 9:38 am to Lou the Jew from LSU
quote:
His life does not have to be in danger, even in slo mo. There has to be a reasonable determination that he fears for his life.
I think many people are missing a big part of this, because I keep seeing the reference of him "fearing for HIS life". It's not just his life. It includes others. Once she disregarded his life, you have to take into account what she might do once she gets past him. He may have saved multiple lives yesterday. Once a person is deemed a threat, these officers are taught to fire until the threat is quashed. As long as she was behind that wheel, conscious, she was a threat. That's why he kept firing. Who is to say she wouldn't have aimed at another officer, or made a u-turn and come back after him?
re: Right on cue - MN - Police shoot and kill woman attempting to run over agent
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 1/7/26 at 1:47 pm to Clark14
quote:
Damn, that dude murdered that woman. That was unnecessary.
Now do Ashli Babbitt.
re: Right on cue - MN - Police shoot and kill woman attempting to run over agent
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 1/7/26 at 1:46 pm to mwade91383
quote:
DHS is calling THAT domestic terrorism!?!
Well, they called 1/6 an insurrection. AND they killed an unarmed veteran.
re: Please VOTE for my bayou cat for America's Favorite mPet
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 1/5/26 at 2:49 pm to Blondiebayou75
Not as good looking as my Bengal. No vote.
re: Monkey business in Morristown, TN... police called
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 1/5/26 at 2:34 pm to HenryParsons
re: Is it weird that Latinos are still underrepresented in football and basketball?
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 12/31/25 at 6:21 am to PelicanState87
quote:
I even looked at the top football and basketball players/stars in more heavily Hispanic cities like San Antonio and LA and they are still mostly Black and White athletes.
:lol: How many Canadians do you think play for the Raptors or Blue Jays? How many players on the Spurs do you think are actually from San Antonio?
re: Do you think Chicken cuts some of us longtime posters slack from being banned?
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 12/24/25 at 11:45 am to RummelTiger
quote:
That Fred…
Yes, that Fred. In this thread. He asked for the previous account name and said he would fix it. But the poster didn't want to post it for all to see. Not sure why.
quote:
Everyone thinks he’s a meanie, but he’s a teddy bear on the inside!
I said the same. He must be in the Christmas spirit.
re: Do you think Chicken cuts some of us longtime posters slack from being banned?
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 12/24/25 at 11:38 am to RummelTiger
quote:
Ah, so you’re an alter.
Maybe this one should also be banned for breaking the rules?
Fred offered to reinstate his original account.
re: Only in Florida. Mom holds someone else’s 6 yo under water
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 12/24/25 at 10:09 am to Stealth Matrix
quote:
So which is it
I had to take a second to interpret that too. He meant if a parent touches his kid, the parent is getting their arse kicked. At least that's what I think he meant.
re: Pastor charged for sending sexually graphic photos of himself to a minor on Snapchat
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 12/24/25 at 9:49 am to ATrillionaire
quote:
Isn't obvious. You made statements of fact, then proceeded to leave room for nuance.
What I meant was "the vast majority" of conservatives would want "all of them" (pedos) prosecuted. The "some conservatives turning a blind eye" comment would fall under the "vast majority" of conservatives comment.
Assuming that's the absolute comment you are talking about. Maybe I worded it poorly. I did not mean all of the conservatives would want pedos prosecuted and then turn around and say that some would turn a blind eye.
re: Pastor charged for sending sexually graphic photos of himself to a minor on Snapchat
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 12/24/25 at 9:40 am to ATrillionaire
quote:
Yikes
Please explain the "yikes". Did you misinterpret something I said?
re: Pastor charged for sending sexually graphic photos of himself to a minor on Snapchat
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 12/24/25 at 9:34 am to DonJuanDaMiles
quote:
There’s conservatives on this board in this thread saying pedophiles can only be liberal
I've read this thread and I don't believe that anyone said ONLY liberals can be pedos. That's insane. And even if someone did say that, it should quickly be dismissed as stupid. MY point is that conservatives want them ALL prosecuted, regardless of conservative or liberal political affiliation. ALL OF THEM. If it is proven that Trump was a pedo, I guarantee you the vast majority of conservatives will want him prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Will some still turn a blind eye, sure. Also my point, the opposite is true of liberals. The vast majority defend their pedos.
re: Pastor charged for sending sexually graphic photos of himself to a minor on Snapchat
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 12/24/25 at 9:23 am to DonJuanDaMiles
quote:
democrats are the one's that want pedo's reading to kids and guys in girls bathrooms.
quote:
And conservatives are the one being pastors to get closer to kids. Which one is better or worse?
Pedos reading storytime to kids and letting men in women's restrooms is worse, obviously. This is considered good practice, legal and supported openly by democrats. YOU support this because of your cult, blindly, because they told you to. Pastors being closer to kids so that they can be pedos is horrible, illegal, immoral. And none of us conservatives support it. We are pissed when it is found out. We are pissed when it is discovered that it was swept under the rug and the person has been transferred to another parish only to do it again. We want it to stop. We want them prosecuted. That's the difference.
re: Pastor charged for sending sexually graphic photos of himself to a minor on Snapchat
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 12/24/25 at 8:26 am to Byron Bojangles III
quote:
another one who isn't a leftist tranny
You think only leftist trannies are pedos? Or more importantly, you think someone on the right THINKS only leftist trannies are pedos?
re: Do you think Chicken cuts some of us longtime posters slack from being banned?
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 12/24/25 at 8:23 am to ob1pimpbobi
quote:
I am not a long time poster but I was banned a year and still have no idea why. I’ve never even been given a warning.
OK, I've seen this posted many times now. So I would like for some mods to explain, why do you not send an e-mail with an explanation of why these people got banned so that they don't make the same mistake again? And let them know about how long they will be banned. Why is there no explanation? I don't get it.
re: Do you think Chicken cuts some of us longtime posters slack from being banned?
Posted by SouthEndzoneTiger on 12/24/25 at 7:37 am to Joshjrn
quote:
Can’t speak for Chicken or TD, but having modded everything from games to boards over the years: yes, absolutely. Though it’s less cutting slack and more that there is an overall body of work to consider. If a brand new poster comes in and stirs up shite, you ban them immediately because they have only shown a propensity to be a problem. If a longtime poster has shown they are generally good but then fricks up, you’re normally going to slap them around a bit and then hope they return to form.
This is sound logic.
I've been here for awhile, never been banned or received a warning. I did have a post deleted once, and still don't understand why. I was given an explanation that basically implied I exceeded my professional expertise on a subject because I wasn't an expert in the matter. Like a layperson giving legal advice or something. Which is not what I was doing.
Popular
36
