XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: MeanDog@Snarl.Dash   
      
   On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 03:14:15 +0000, Mitchell Holman    
   wrote:   
      
   >Skeeter  wrote in   
   >news:MPG.43d32e5ab2984fa998ab8b@usnews.blocknews.net:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >   
   >    Just like Renee Good.   
   >   
      
      
   who weaponize her car.   
      
   --   
   Only losers want Socialism or Communism.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)