XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: invalid@none.com   
      
   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.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > The courts have often used the "Split-Second Decision" standard (from   
   Graham   
   > > v. Connor). Officers ARE NOT EXPECTED TO STOP FIRING the exact millisecond   
   a   
   > > car turns, as human reaction time and the momentum of the event make that   
   > > physically impossible.   
   > >   
   > > Your "hindsight" logic is bullshit. NO ONE knows what Good's intent was.   
   Just   
   > > because the car turned away, the immediate threat to that specific officer   
   had   
   > > passed, but the public in range were still in danger.   
   >   
   >  From a soccer mom leaving a scene having committed no crimes?   
      
   Her story.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > You're treating a dynamic "gunfight" like a turn-based video game. You   
   ASSUME   
   > > the officer has "infinite" processing time to see the wheels turn, conclude   
   > > the danger is 100% gone, and signal his brain to stop pulling the   
   trigger-all   
   > > in less than a second.   
   > >   
   > > Fuck that, AND you.   
   > >   
   > > Standard procedure is as follows: law enforcement is trained to "shoot to   
   stop   
   > > the threat." If the first shot doesn't stop the driver, the threat (a   
   moving   
   > > 5,000lb weapon) is still active.   
   >   
   > Actually, officers are trained by CBP not to put themselves in a place   
   > where they can then claim there was a "threat".   
      
   He didn't. She did.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > The flaw in your bullshit logic is that the second and third shots were   
   > > "punitive" (retaliation) rather than "preventative."   
   > >   
   > > An un-incapacitated driver in a moving vehicle is still a "rolling" deadly   
   > > weapon.   
   >   
   > An incapacitated driver in a moving vehicle is a threat.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > Fuck off...   
   > >   
   > > ... and...   
   > >   
   > > PLONK!   
   > >   
   > > No more bullshit semantics and/or arguing minutiae.   
   > >   
   > > ============================================================   
   ================   
   > >   
   > > MINNESOTA LAW:   
   > >   
   > > 1. The "Perspective of a Reasonable Officer" (MN Statute 609.066)   
   > >   
   > > Minnesota law is very clear: whether the force was justified must be   
   evaluated   
   > > based on what a "reasonable officer" perceived at the time, "without the   
   > > benefit of hindsight."   
   > >   
   > > "But the car was turning away."   
   > >   
   > > You're using hindsight.   
   > >   
   > > The law says we must look at the "totality of circumstances" known to the   
   > > officer at that split second. If the driver just attempted to run them   
   over, a   
   > > reasonable officer perceives an active, deadly threat until that driver is   
   > > stopped.   
   > >   
   > > 2. The Definition of "Imminent" (Federal and MN Standards)   
   > >   
   > > In the 2025/2026 legal guidelines, "imminent" does not mean the bumper has   
   to   
   > > be touching the officer's skin.   
   > >   
   > > The Law: Under MN policies, "imminent" means "ready to take place;   
   impending."   
   > >   
   > > An SUV that is maneuvering after an attempted assault is "impending"   
   danger.   
   > > It doesn't have to be traveling toward the officer in a straight line to   
   be a   
   > > threat; its presence as a mobile, heavy weapon with a hostile driver makes   
   the   
   > > threat continuous.   
   > >   
   > > 3. The "Plumhoff v. Rickard" Precedent   
   > >   
   > > This is a Supreme Court case (often cited in federal investigations like   
   the   
   > > one by ICE/DHS in Minneapolis) that specifically addresses shooting at a   
   > > moving vehicle.   
   > >   
   > > The Fact: In Plumhoff, the court ruled that if an officer is justified in   
   > > firing at a vehicle to stop a threat, THEY ARE JUSTIFIED IN CONTINUING TO   
   FIRE   
   > > UNTIL THAT THREAT HAS BEEN NEUTRALIZED.   
   > >   
   > > I said, "Shoot until the perpetrator is incapacitated."   
   > >   
   > > This is backed by Plumhoff. The court found that if the initial shots are   
   > > justified, the subsequent ones are too, as long as the driver hasn't   
   clearly   
   > > surrendered or been stopped.   
   > >   
   > > 4. Why the Feds have the evidence:   
   > >   
   > > Since this involves federal agents (ICE/DHS), the Federal Tort Claims Act   
   and   
   > > federal supremacy often apply.   
   > >   
   > > The Fact: When a federal agent is involved, the federal government has a   
   > > "sovereign interest" in the investigation. They aren't "preventing"   
   Minnesota   
   > > from seeing it; they are following a standard legal "primacy" rule where   
   the   
   > > federal investigation often takes the lead on evidence custody to prevent   
   > > local interference or bias.   
   > >   
   > > Suggested "Refocusing" Statement   
   > >   
   > > I'm shutting down the your bullshit "minutiae" about the car turning right   
   > > now.   
   > >   
   > > Minnesota Statute 609.066 and the Supreme Court's ruling in Plumhoff both   
   > > reject your hindsight. You don't get to pause a video and say the threat   
   ended   
   > > because the wheels turned three degrees. The law judges the officer's   
   'split-   
   > > second decision' in a 'tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving' situation.   
   > >   
   > > If you use an SUV as a deadly weapon, the 'whys and whatfores' of the   
   > > investigation don't change the fact that the threat exists until the   
   driver is   
   > > stopped."   
   > >   
   > > Had enough?   
   > The "threat" only existed because the "officer" created it by stepping   
   > in front of the vehicle, and that cannot be used to justify deadly force...   
   >   
   > ...as is outlined in the CBP "Use of Force Policy".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)