XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, nz.politics   
   From: super70s@super70s.invalid   
      
   On 2026-01-08 21:09:46 +0000, Socialism is for losers said:   
      
   > On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 14:50:00 -0600, super70s   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2026-01-08 20:46:10 +0000, Socialism is for losers said:   
   >>   
   >>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 15:22:19 -0500, -hh   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> It will depend on the jury.   
   >>   
   >> Yeah a Minneapolis jury, not one in Alabammy. Good luck.   
   >   
   > No...  Federal agents are immune from state and local prosecution when   
   > acting on official business.   
      
   You were the one who brought up a jury dweeb.   
      
   This guy's gonna get his ass sued off in a civil suit at the very   
   least, cost him a lot more than his $50K sign-on bonus.   
      
   Also get doxxed sooner or later, AI will see to that.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)