XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: invalid@none.com   
      
   In article ,   
   noemail@aol.com says...   
   >   
   > Skeeter  wrote in news:MPG.43d231ff19568e9e98ab29   
   > @usnews.blocknews.net:   
   >   
   > > 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?   
   >   
   >   
   >     Why isn't Trump prosecuting this "murder"?   
      
   Not his job. Why is Walz allowing domestic terrorism?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)