XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: NoBody@nowhere.com   
      
   On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 14:25:57 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   Good so you now admit she pointed her vehicle at him.   
      
   This is a start for you.   
      
   >   
   >> She gunned the gas so much that her tires spun.   
   >   
   >The road was slippery.   
      
   Yeah...duh.  I'm sure you were trying to make a point...   
      
   >   
   >> She actually DID hit him.   
   >   
   >That is unproven.   
      
   LAUGHTER!  All the video footage proves you to be a fool.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>> ...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   
      
   Quote the exact relevant passage that says it doesn't.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
      
   LAUGHTER!   
      
   It's a crime to flee from the police.   
      
   Duh.   
      
   >>   
   >> This is basic logic here and you blame HIM for HER decisions.   
   >   
   >I blame HIM for HIS decisions.   
      
   Laughter!   
      
   >   
   >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...   
      
   Pick a video of your choosing and tell me the timestamps that you are   
   referring.   
      
   >   
   >...in direct violation of policies regarding tactical positioning of   
   >agents in such situations.   
   >   
      
   Laughter!  He was already aside...until SHE changed that.   
      
   >   
   >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...   
   >   
      
   This armchair quarterbacking of yours is just silliness or stupidity   
   (pick one).   
      
   >...in direct violation of his use of force policies.   
   >   
   >Shall I quote them again for you?   
      
   Please quote ONLY the relevent sentences that say if a vehicle is   
   proceeding towards you and your life is in danger that you are not   
   allowed to use lethal force.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)