XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-15 15:55, Skeeter wrote:   
   > In article <10kbs60$15km6$5@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   > uh@nope.com says...   
   >>   
   >> On 2026-01-15 15:08, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>> In article <10kbpr2$15km4$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> On 2026-01-15 13:12, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>>>> In article <10kbi85$122uj$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>>>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>>> He chose to remain there when a single step to his right would have   
   >>>>>> taken him out of the danger area.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> and she would still be alive if shw just would have   
   >>>>> followed orders.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What "order" was she given?   
   >>>   
   >>> Get out of the car.   
   >>   
   >> Show a video where that is heard.   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I've watched the videos: there was not order given to her.   
   >>>   
   >>> There was. Why did you ignore the video of her "wife"   
   >>> taunting the agents?   
   >> How is it relevant?   
   >>   
   >> "Taunting" is most definitely free speech.   
   >   
   > You ignored that. You ignored that she was running around   
   > the car doing it while the other bitch was making a   
   > "turn"?   
   What relevance is it to the fact that in contravention of policy, the   
   "agent" stopped in front of the vehicle that he could see was about to   
   move ahead?   
      
   He takes one step to his right and there's no "threat" at all...   
      
   ...but maybe he WANTED there to be a threat, so that he could shoot her.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)