XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump
From: MeanDog@Snarl.Dash
On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 20:27:52 -0800, Alan wrote:
>On 2026-01-16 20:13, Skeeter wrote:
>> 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 <
oemail@aol.com>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>The car did NOT jerk we have video that clearly shows it just moved off
>in a normal manner.
>
>>>
>>> Moving himself quickly out of the way could produce such a jerk.
>>
>> So can getting hit by a jerking car.
>
>But we know what he was supposed to do and he failed to do it.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>
>Attempting to go back the way she'd come because she came upon an ICE
>operation and thought going back would be best.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...which she wouldn't have been doing if she was "weaponizing her car".
>>
>> Mind reading again?
>
>Nope. Intent can be inferred from actions.
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>How bright do you have to be to know that turning right is going to make
>it less likely to his someone if that were your intent?
>
>Even YOU are bright enough for that...
>
>...I think.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
