XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: invalid@none.com   
      
   In article <10kbv40$15km4$22@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   uh@nope.com says...   
   >   
   > On 2026-01-15 15:55, Skeeter wrote:   
   > > In article <10kbs60$15km6$5@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   > > uh@nope.com says...   
   > >>   
   > >> On 2026-01-15 15:08, Skeeter wrote:   
   > >>> In article <10kbpr2$15km4$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   > >>> uh@nope.com says...   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> On 2026-01-15 13:12, Skeeter wrote:   
   > >>>>> In article <10kbi85$122uj$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   > >>>>> uh@nope.com says...   
   > >>>>>> He chose to remain there when a single step to his right would have   
   > >>>>>> taken him out of the danger area.   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> and she would still be alive if shw just would have   
   > >>>>> followed orders.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> What "order" was she given?   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Get out of the car.   
   > >>   
   > >> Show a video where that is heard.   
   > >>   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> I've watched the videos: there was not order given to her.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> There was. Why did you ignore the video of her "wife"   
   > >>> taunting the agents?   
   > >> How is it relevant?   
   > >>   
   > >> "Taunting" is most definitely free speech.   
   > >   
   > > You ignored that. You ignored that she was running around   
   > > the car doing it while the other bitch was making a   
   > > "turn"?   
   > What relevance is it to the fact that in contravention of policy, the   
   > "agent" stopped in front of the vehicle that he could see was about to   
   > move ahead?   
      
   Plenty, it shows intent.   
   >   
   > He takes one step to his right and there's no "threat" at all...   
   >   
   > ...but maybe he WANTED there to be a threat, so that he could shoot her.   
      
      
   More for your hate agenda.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)