XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-14 16:13, Skeeter wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Says who? Did he fall down? Was there any evidence of injury after the   
   car moved away?   
      
      
      
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> A threat is not "over" just because the vehicle has cleared the officer's   
   >>> path.   
   >>   
   >> Yes, actually it is.   
   >   
   > Who says? You?  LOL   
      
   The CBP "Use of Force Policy" actually.   
      
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
      
   And how does she know that?   
      
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
      
   What about it is a 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.   
      
   False. He remained in front of her when a step to his right would have   
   taken him completely out of the vehicle's path.   
   >> 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)