XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump
From: nuh-uh@nope.com
On 2026-01-18 06:58, NoBody wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 14:06:47 -0800, Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2026-01-17 06:56, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 20:17:15 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2026-01-16 19:44, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>> In article <10kes86$26qks$5@dont-email.me>, nuh-
>>>>> uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 18:14, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <10keiop$23gth$3@dont-email.me>, nuh-
>>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 09:24, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ... and say this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 14:34:23 -0800, Alan says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Road?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://i.imgur.com/OC9smu9.mp4
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://i.imgur.com/Lfbiqwg.jpeg
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> See those people standing thar, stoopit? WHAT are they standing on?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Were any of those people in the direction she intended to travel?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure they were.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do YOU know where Good was "intending to travel"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was making an illustrative point. YOU moved the goalposts, as
usual, with
>>>>>>>>> your fallacy of the specific.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> She could have gone down the street MADE A 3-POINT TURN and came
back at the
>>>>>>>>> officers, them, having to draw the weapons again and shoot her again.
>>>>>>>> So by pretending you know her intent was to run over an "officer"...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well you seem to be able to read minds you tell us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So when he states her intent he's NOT reading minds?
>>>>>
>>>>> BUTWHATABOUT!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...you then pretend they need to protect against future "attacks".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> She was turning away from the officer, doofus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On a one way street on a very icy road. No telling what
>>>>>>> could happen.
>>>>>> Actually there is "telling" that the car could not have gone to its left
>>>>>> with the wheels turned right.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it went straight.
>>>>
>>>> No, it most certainly did not. COULD not have with the wheels turned all
>>>> the way to the right.
>>>
>>> But you claim he was standing in front. If she turned she wouldn't
>>> have him with the front headlight.
>>>> You can't have things both ways dingdong.
>>
>> 1. We don't know that he was actually hit.
>>
>
> LAUGHTER.
> Yeah sure. All the videos were edited...
Show a video that actually shows any contact.
>
>> 2. But if he'd been standing close enough he COULD have been hit.
>
> He WAS hit.
Unproven at this point.
>
>>
>> Seriously, this isn't tough to have figured out on your own, numbnuts.
>
> Oh I've already figured out the facts. It's just you and a couple of
> liberal dingdongs who haven't.
2. Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles.
Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless:
(1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person
with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is
operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical
injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable
means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path
of the vehicle.'
Read that last part until you get it:
'and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist,
which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.'
>
>>
>> But neither changes the fact that her intent can be inferred from her
>> actions.
>
> Intent is irrelevent in this case. The actions taken by her is the
> only evidence necessary.
2. Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles.
Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless:
(1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person
with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is
operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical
injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable
means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path
of the vehicle.'
Read that last part until you get it:
'and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist,
which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.'
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
