XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump
From: NoBody@nowhere.com
On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 12:21:25 -0800, Alan wrote:
>On 2026-01-15 04:39, NoBody wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 14:44:39 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>
>>> On 2026-01-12 09:39, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 23:17:28 -0800, Alan says...
>>>>
>>>>>> IDENTIFICATION, maybe?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://i.imgur.com/DcWxMed.jpg
>>>>>> https://i.imgur.com/aG2QU6c.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> He didn't have a bodycam?
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm... I do not know.
>>>>
>>>> Did YOU see a body cam?
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...if he thought this person was a threat?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who said that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHO said what the agent "thought"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Back into the mind-reading business, are we?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PAAAAALONK!
>>>>
>>>>> Training.
>>>>
>>>> LOL... yours or his?
>>>>
>>>> Yours: tell us of this training. Tell us what YOUR training was when you
were
>>>> about to be run over by a domestic insurrectionist terrorist, who was
blocking
>>>> a federal agent, you, from performing your duty as an ICE agent.
>>>
>>> How was her leaving "blocking" him?
>>
>> Why did you dodge his question. It's a very straightforward one.
>
>There was no "question" put to me.
"Tell us your training" is a question. Not all questions end with "?"
but you knew that.
>
>I did go and look up the CBP's "Use of Force Policy".
>
It's your argument, YOU make it.
>And you're engaging in circular argument.
Laughter! Irony anyone?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> His: tell us of his training. Tell us what HIS training was when he was
about
>>>> to be run over by a domestic insurrectionist terrorist, who was blocking
him
>>>> and his fellow federal agents, from performing his/their duties as ICE
agents.
>>>
>>> I thought you'd never ask!
>>>
>>> 'Chapter 1: General Guidelines
>>>
>>> C. Use of Safe Tactics
>>>
>>> 2. Except where otherwise required by inspections or other operations,
>>> Authorized Officers/Agents should avoid standing directly in front of or
>>> behind a subject vehicle. Officers/agents should not place themselves in
>>> the path of a moving vehicle or use their body to block a vehicle’s path.
>>
>> Pulling this out again I see. He was not "in front" until she
>> reversed her vehicle and changed her angle.
>>
>> Good grief.
>
>Sorry, but he was walking into that position.
He was already at an angle from her until SHE changed the angle to
direct on.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 3. Authorized Officers/Agents should avoid intentionally and
>>> unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no
>>> alternative to using deadly force.'
>>
>> He did. SHE changed that equation.
>
>He chose to remain there when a single step to his right would have
>taken him out of the danger area.
Laughter!
I love how you pretend to be an armchair expert on what could or could
not have been done. She weaponized her vehicle and he perceived a
threat to his life and safety. Legit shoot.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 'Chapter 2: Use of Deadly Force
>>>
>>> A. General Guidelines and Responsibilities
>>>
>>> 7. Authorized Officers/Agents shall not discharge their firearms at the
>>> operator of a moving vehicle, vessel, or aircraft unless deadly force is
>>> necessary, that is, when the officer/agent has a reasonable belief that
>>> the operator poses an imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death
>>> to the officer/agent or to another person.
>>
>> Shooting to avoid being killed by van seems pretty "necessary" to me.
>> Perhaps you should take the time to actually understand the
>> regulations you post?
>
>'2. Authorized Officers/Agents should avoid standing directly in front
>of or behind a subject vehicle. Officers/agents should not place
>themselves in the path of a moving vehicle or use their body to block a
>vehicle’s path.
>
>3. Authorized Officers/Agents should avoid intentionally and
>unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no
>alternative to using deadly force.'
As you've already been told, she changed the equation, he did not.
>
>>
>>>
>>> a. Such deadly force may include a moving vehicle aimed at
>>> officers/agents or others present, but would not include a moving
>>> vehicle merely fleeing from officers/agents unless the vehicle or the
>>> escape of the subject poses an imminent threat of serious bodily injury
>>> or death to the officer/agent or to another person.'
>>
>> She had not yet fled when she hit him with the FRONT of her van. Are
>> agents hired to be mind readers too?
>
>She wasn't "fleeing" at all, she was LEAVING. She was clearly executing
>a 3-point turn to go back the way she'd come.
>
>>
>> Most liberals have had the good sense to realize that this line is
>> complete garbage and have wandered away.
>
>The administration has lied about this from the first moment.
>
>At first they said there were "rioters" present.
Stay on the topic of what happened on the street and the multiple
videos.
>
>
>
>That was a lie.
>
>Trump posted that the the "officer" had been "run over".
>
>
>
>That was a lie...
The term is very general. She hit him and caused internal injuries.
That's "run over".
>
>...along with claiming she was "disorderly", "violent" and "vicious".
>
>I can produce more lies if you'd like.
Since everything you post is a lie, that wouldn't surprise me one bit.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
