XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, nz.politics
From: MeanDog@Snarl.Dash
On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 16:25:57 -0600, super70s
wrote:
>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.
Yeah... do you have a point?
>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.
It vould happen, but not likely. If it does, he'd have lots of money
coming in.
>Also get doxxed sooner or later, AI will see to that.
He may have to shoot someone else.
--
Only losers want Socialism or Communism.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
