XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: invalid@none.com   
      
   In article <10kh29l$2tnfv$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   uh@nope.com says...   
   >   
   > On 2026-01-17 06:38, NoBody wrote:   
   > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 11:19:59 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> On 2026-01-16 04:30, NoBody wrote:   
   > >>>>>> 3. Authorized Officers/Agents should avoid intentionally and   
   > >>>>>> unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no   
   > >>>>>> alternative to using deadly force.'   
   > >>>>> He did.  SHE changed that equation.   
   > >>>> He chose to remain there when a single step to his right would have   
   > >>>> taken him out of the danger area.   
   > >>> Laughter!   
   > >>>   
   > >>> I love how you pretend to be an armchair expert on what could or could   
   > >>> not have been done.  She weaponized her vehicle and he perceived a   
   > >>> threat to his life and safety.  Legit shoot.   
   > >>   
   > >> If she'd intended to drive into him, she wouldn't have been turning her   
   > >> steering wheel hard to the right...   
   > >>   
   > >   
   > > Love how you armchair ICE agent.   
   > >   
   > > She reversed such that the vehicle was pointing towards him.   
   >   
   > As he was walking to her left.   
   >   
   > > She gunned the gas so much that her tires spun.   
   >   
   > The road was slippery.   
      
   So? You should know not to gun it if the road is icy.   
   >   
   > > She actually DID hit him.   
   >   
   > That is unproven.   
      
   And you opinions have proven nothing.   
   >   
   > >   
   > >> ...and therefore AWAY from him.   
   > >   
   > > Irrelevent since she weaponized her vehicle.   
   > > Justified use of force.   
   >   
   > Not according to any use of force policy that he could have been   
   > operating under.   
      
   "POLICY" SQWAK "POLICY"   
   >   
   > >   
   > >>   
   > >> She saw a man moving across from her right to left, and how was she to   
   > >> know he'd stop moving?   
   > >   
   > > Guess she should have made sure he was clear before she tried to run.   
   >   
   > Maybe she would have if another agent hadn't rushed up with no warning   
   > and grabbed her driver's side door.   
      
   Just doing their job.   
   >   
   > >   
   > > This is basic logic here and you blame HIM for HER decisions.   
   >   
   > I blame HIM for HIS decisions.   
   >   
   > Specifically:   
   >   
   > The decision to stop in front of a vehicle that was in motion a moment   
   > before and which he could see from the fact that she was steering to her   
   > right was going to be in motion again in another moment...   
   >   
   > ...in direct violation of policies regarding tactical positioning of   
   > agents in such situations.   
      
   POLICY!   
   >   
   >   
   > The decision to treat a vehicle as a threat when a step to his left   
   > would have completely obviated the need to use deadly force...   
      
   She didn't care though.   
   >   
   > ...in direct violation of his use of force policies.   
   >   
   > Shall I quote them again for you?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)