XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump
From: MeanDog@Snarl.Dash
On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 15:54:03 -0800, Alan wrote:
>On 2026-01-16 06:58, Socialism is for losers wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 22:12:18 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>
>>> On 2026-01-15 21:56, Socialism is for losers wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> Who was just trying to leave the area.
>>
>> By stomping on the gas with a man standing in front of her car?
>By turning her wheel all the way to her right and assuming that a man
>who had been walking to her left would continue to walk left.
>
>And there was no "stomping".
The car sure jerked ahead as it hit him.
--
Only losers want Socialism or Communism.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
