XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-14 22:07, Skeeter wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   > noemail@aol.com says...   
   >>   
   >> Skeeter  wrote in   
   >> news:MPG.43d1df313a3f71e98ab02@usnews.blocknews.net:   
   >>   
   >>> In article <10k96l8$8549$14@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> On 2026-01-12 09:39, AlleyCat wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 23:16:44 -0800,  Alan says...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Both criminals.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> You aren't allowed to shoot at someone when they aren't a threat.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Correct... I guess.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> But, no. (see bottom)   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> Even if his first shot was when he was near the front of the   
   >>>>>> vehicle, his next two were from directly beside the driver's door,   
   >>>>>> and it was turning AWAY from him.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And I've explained this, moron.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Law enforcement, after having been run over, plowed down, assaulted   
   >>>>> with a deadly weapon, vehicularly (Y, IK) assaulted, or any other   
   >>>>> term you might want to use   
   >>>>> here, usually shoot until the perpetrator is incapacitated or out   
   >>>>> of range, to keep the driver from doing any more harm to others or   
   >>>>> even themselves.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Except this officer was not "run over" OR "plowed down".   
   >>>   
   >>> But he was hit.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> A threat is not "over" just because the vehicle has cleared the   
   >>>>> officer's path.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Yes, actually it is.   
   >>>   
   >>> Who says? You?  LOL   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If Good has already demonstrated her intent (which the officers did   
   >>>>> not KNOW) to use a vehicle as a weapon, they remain a 'deadly   
   >>>>> threat" until they are stopped. Turning "away" could simply be a   
   >>>>> maneuver to reposition for another strike or to flee at high   
   >>>>> speeds, endangering the public.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Her obvious intent was to leave the area and an officer with no   
   >>>> authority grabbed at her door, escalating the situation.   
   >>>   
   >>> No authority? He's a law officer you moron.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>     So were the Capitol Police that   
   >> Trump (and you) want to prosecute.   
   >   
   > Like the one that murdered Ashley?   
      
   She was breaking into a secure area and posed an immediate threat to   
   those the police were defending behind that door.   
      
   To use your favourite phrase:   
      
   She should have complied.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)