XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump
From: nuh-uh@nope.com
On 2026-01-17 00:26, Socialism is for losers wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 17:06:56 -0800, Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2026-01-16 16:43, Socialism is for losers wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 16:35:41 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2026-01-16 15:53, Socialism is for losers wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 15:43:39 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 09:25, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 15:17:39 -0800, Alan says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was in the Queen's York Rangers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Uhhh... NO ONE gives a shit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Had a lot of people trying to run you over in cars, did you?
>>>>>> Nope. But she wasn't trying to run him over.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She wouldn't have turned the wheel all the way to the right if she was.
>>>>>
>>>>> You think you could read her mind?
>>>>>
>>>>> The only available facts are that she hit him and he killed her.
>>>>
>>>> I can read the fact that a man was walking to her left and she was
>>>> steering to the right. Those are facts too.
>>>
>>> He was not walking when she hit him.
>> That's my point: he stopped.
>>
>> When all the use of force policies explicitly state you shouldn't stop
>> in front of a vehicle...
>>
>> ...he stopped.
>
> and she hit him.
That remains unproven.
But stopping was specifically called out in the use of force policies as
something he SHOULD NOT DO, and also that using deadly force against a
vehicle is only permissible when the agent cannot avoid being hit...
...which he could have by taking one more step.
Customs and Border Patrol were called out in a 2013 report specifically
for stopping in front of vehicles and then using that as a justification
for shooting people.
>
>> One more step to his right / her left and he is completely clear of any
>> possible conflict.
>
> Had she obeyed the commands she would still be alive.
There was no command to stop.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
