I don't. But it certainly doesn't hurt the chances. En banc is usually only granted when the original appellate decisions would lead to inconsistent results in the circuit (contravenes some established precedent etc) or if it is a matter of special importance to the public and legal system in general.

The 2nd circuit did not hold evidentiary hearings. They did not even comment on the validity of goodell’s factual findings. Trial courts are only given deference over factual findings. Legal decisions are reviewed de novo.

2nd circuit isn't going to hear this en banc. SCOTUS isn't gonna grant cert either. This thing is completely dead.

The 2nd circuit won’t hear this en banc. SCOTUS will probably deny cert. So, no more appeal avenues.

It's over.

That's not how this works

I doubt the 2nd circuit would agree to hear this en banc.

This is trolling, right? Gotta be.

Ok. Nice side note. Let me bring you back to the discussion at hand though: “anyone with a gun can be shot on site” is neither the logical conclusion to the law nor a colorable argument based on the law. It's just plain wrong.

It’s clear that you’re not an expert in this area based on pretty much everything you’ve written. My friendly advice is to stop now before you embarrass yourself further.

The fear has to be reasonable (it wouldn’t be) and the death must be imminent (it wouldn’t be).

“Fact”—doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Do you have to file against a department head to sue a division of the state government in Louisiana?

Surprises me that he stayed at the scene.

She was arrested for a separate offense. There is no requirement that the prosecutors charge the underlying offense. Even if there were precedent for that, which there isn’t, this isn’t in federal court.

Did you read the linked article? Everything you said is wrong.

She was running on the north side of lee road. Cop asked her to run on the sidewalk on the south side of lee road. There is definitely a sidewalk there near the intersection with Rickett.

“What she did is battery. That’s a fact, not an opinion.”

Once she committed the infraction, I believe she was legally obligated to answer the officer’s questions. Her refusal was the ultimate arresting offense according to the linked article. In any event, I also believe SCOTUS has ruled that arresting someone for a misdemeanor, fine only, or otherwise minor offense is…

I don’t believe the cams are constantly recording, but I could be wrong.