XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-15 16:31, Skeeter wrote:   
   > In article <10kbv40$15km4$22@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   > uh@nope.com says...   
   >>   
   >> On 2026-01-15 15:55, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>> In article <10kbs60$15km6$5@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> On 2026-01-15 15:08, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>>>> In article <10kbpr2$15km4$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>>>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 2026-01-15 13:12, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>>>>>> In article <10kbi85$122uj$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>>>>> He chose to remain there when a single step to his right would have   
   >>>>>>>> taken him out of the danger area.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> and she would still be alive if shw just would have   
   >>>>>>> followed orders.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> What "order" was she given?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Get out of the car.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Show a video where that is heard.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I've watched the videos: there was not order given to her.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> There was. Why did you ignore the video of her "wife"   
   >>>>> taunting the agents?   
   >>>> How is it relevant?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Taunting" is most definitely free speech.   
   >>>   
   >>> You ignored that. You ignored that she was running around   
   >>> the car doing it while the other bitch was making a   
   >>> "turn"?   
   >> What relevance is it to the fact that in contravention of policy, the   
   >> "agent" stopped in front of the vehicle that he could see was about to   
   >> move ahead?   
   >   
   > Plenty, it shows intent.   
      
   It shows his intent to create a threat in order to have a reason to shoot.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)