XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: invalid@none.com   
      
   In article <10k9f4n$8eb4$7@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com   
   says...   
   >   
   > 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?   
      
   You only saw what they wanted you to see.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > >>   
   > >>>   
   > >>> 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?   
      
   Uh hey stupid. She was there because she knew who they   
   were. Damn you're dumb.   
   >   
   > >>   
   > >>>   
   > >>> 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?   
      
   Most of it.   
   >   
   > >>   
   > >>>   
   > >>> 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.   
      
      
   Your hate has you incoherent.   
      
   > >> 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)