XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump
From: invalid@none.com
In article <10keu0j$27aph$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-
uh@nope.com says...
>
> On 2026-01-16 18:51, Skeeter wrote:
> > In article <10kelfi$24cdg$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-
> > uh@nope.com says...
> >>
> >> On 2026-01-16 16:17, Socialism is for losers wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >> Nope. The "officer" might have jerked, but there is video taken from
> >> outside the car and it moved off in a completely ordinary manner.
> >
> > It jerked.
>
> The officer seems to have jerked in his cellphone video...
>
> ...but that doesn't prove that he was struck.
The car jerked and so did he. Nice try. It's a good thing
she's dead because if you were her lawyer she would be
doomed.
>
> Moving himself quickly out of the way could produce such a jerk.
So can getting hit by a jerking car.
>
> >>
> >> And you haven't addressed that she was clearly steering away from him..
> >
> > Well she's a shitty driver then. Besides she was making a
> > u turn on a one way street. You defended her by saying she
> > didn't know it was a one way street. So not only is she a
> > shitty driver she shouldn't even be driving at all.
>
> None of that changes that she was steering away from him.
Why was she pointed in that direction in the first place?
>
> >>
> >> ...which she wouldn't have been doing if she was "weaponizing her car".
Mind reading again?
> >
> >
> > Oh you read her mind? How many time have you personally
> > been in the same situation? Never? Then STFU.
> If her intent was to hit him, she chose a course of action that
> absolutely minimized the chance.
So? She wasn't the brightest bulb in the box.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
