XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, nz.politics   
   From: recscuba_google@huntzinger.com   
      
   On 1/8/26 11:49, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   > On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 08:11:29 -0600, super70s   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2026-01-08 13:00:12 +0000, -hh said:   
   >>   
   >>> On 1/8/26 05:25, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   >>>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 05:22:28 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D´Oliveiro   
   >>>>  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 13:32:48 -0600, Ken wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> No mention of the fact that the dead person was trying to run over   
   >>>>>> ICE agents??   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Notice the shot was from an oblique angle. That (as well as the video   
   >>>>> itself) shows the shooter was not in the path of the vehicle.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Yet he clealy got hit.   
   >>>   
   >>> Where does the TTP state that an officer should deliberately stand in   
   >>> front of an operating vehicle?  Chapter & verse with cite, please.   
   >>>   
   >>> Putting yourself in harm's way when the TTP doesn't call for that   
   >>> doctrine is a standards violation...   
   >>>   
   >>> ...and escalation to try to cover for your mistake isn't justified.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> -hh   
   >>   
   >> They're notorious for standing by the front quarter panel of a car, out   
   >> of harm's way but close enough to claim they were "in fear of their   
   >> lives" if they shoot someone. This is not the first time an incident   
   >> like this has happened with them.   
   >   
   > She hit him and she got what she deserved.   
      
   Barely, and that was despite how he deliberately stepped in front of a   
   running vehicle.   
      
   FWIW, Adam Cochran has said that he's spoken on background with two   
   attorneys who have defended officer involved shootings.   
      
   Both have always taken their cases to trial.   
      
   After reviewing the events today, both said if it were their client   
   they’d advise:   
      
   - Seek a plea deal   
   - Be willing to plead guilty to a lesser crime or a lower sentence   
   - Accept anything that isn’t de jure LWOP (life with out parole)   
      
   In other words, the guys who defend police officers shooting for a   
   living, think this case is unwinnable.  They would try to defend his   
   actions, they’d just try and lower the impact of the outcome.   
      
   Their main sticking point were:   
      
     - "I could argue shot number one and hope for an acquittal or a hung   
   jury - but I can’t get there on shots 2 and 3"   
      
   - "A jury will not get passed the turning of the wheels"   
      
   - "Denying medics throws self defense out the window"   
      
      
   -hh   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)