XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump
From: MeanDog@Snarl.Dash
On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 14:02:48 -0800, Alan wrote:
>On 2026-01-17 01:54, Socialism is for losers wrote:
>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
