XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: invalid@none.com   
      
   In article <10kbt0p$15km6$12@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   uh@nope.com says...   
   >   
   > On 2026-01-14 22:07, Skeeter wrote:   
   > > 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?   
   >   
   > She was breaking into a secure area and posed an immediate threat to   
   > those the police were defending behind that door.   
      
   They had guns and she didn't. Defend that bitch.   
   >   
   > To use your favourite phrase:   
   >   
   > She should have complied.   
      
   Same situation you are trying to make.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)