XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-17 15:36, Skeeter wrote:   
   > In article <10kh200$2tnfv$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   > uh@nope.com says...   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   > There was and she was there for a reason. That reason got   
   > her killed.   
      
   So you're admitting the shot at her for the reason YOU imagine?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)