XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-17 15:55, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   > On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 14:20:48 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > She knew he was in frront of her car and she drove in such a manner   
   >   as to hit him.   
   >   
      
   If that were true, she wouldn't have steered to her right.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   No answer for that, huh?   
      
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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.   
   Or this.   
      
   '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)