XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-17 15:36, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   > On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 14:02:48 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2026-01-17 01:54, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   >>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 20:27:52 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 2026-01-16 20:13, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>>>> In article <10keu0j$27aph$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>>>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 2026-01-16 18:51, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>>>>>> In article <10kelfi$24cdg$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 16:17, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 15:54:03 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 06:58, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 22:12:18 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-15 21:56, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 03:14:15 +0000, Mitchell Holman   
      
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skeeter  wrote in   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:MPG.43d32e5ab2984fa998ab8b@usnews.blocknews.net:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <10kbt0p$15km6$12@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-14 22:07, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article ,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noemail@aol.com says...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skeeter  wrote in   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:MPG.43d1df313a3f71e98ab02@usnews.blocknews.net:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <10k96l8$8549$14@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-12 09:39, AlleyCat wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 23:16:44 -0800,  Alan says...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both criminals.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You aren't allowed to shoot at someone when they aren't   
   a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threat.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct... I guess.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, no. (see bottom)   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if his first shot was when he was near the front   
   of the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle, his next two were from directly beside the   
   driver's   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> door, and it was turning AWAY from him.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I've explained this, moron.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Law enforcement, after having been run over, plowed down,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assaulted with a deadly weapon, vehicularly (Y, IK)   
   assaulted,   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or any other term you might want to use   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here, usually shoot until the perpetrator is   
   incapacitated or   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of range, to keep the driver from doing any more   
   harm to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others or even themselves.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except this officer was not "run over" OR "plowed down".   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But he was hit.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A threat is not "over" just because the vehicle has   
   cleared the   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> officer's path.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, actually it is.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who says? You?  LOL   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Good has already demonstrated her intent (which the   
   officers   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did not KNOW) to use a vehicle as a weapon, they remain a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'deadly threat" until they are stopped. Turning "away"   
   could   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply be a maneuver to reposition for another strike or   
   to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flee at high speeds, endangering the public.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Her obvious intent was to leave the area and an officer   
   with no   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority grabbed at her door, escalating the situation.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No authority? He's a law officer you moron.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>            So were the Capitol Police that   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump (and you) want to prosecute.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like the one that murdered Ashley?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She was breaking into a secure area and posed an immediate   
   threat to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those the police were defending behind that door.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They had guns and she didn't.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Just like Renee Good.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> who weaponize her car.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Who was just trying to leave the area.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> By stomping on the gas with a man standing in front of her car?   
   >>>>>>>>>> By turning her wheel all the way to her right and assuming that a   
   man   
   >>>>>>>>>> who had been walking to her left would continue to walk left.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> And there was no "stomping".   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> The car sure jerked ahead as it hit him.   
   >>>>>>>> Nope. The "officer" might have jerked, but there is video taken from   
   >>>>>>>> outside the car and it moved off in a completely ordinary manner.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> It jerked.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> The officer seems to have jerked in his cellphone video...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> ...but that doesn't prove that he was struck.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The car jerked and so did he. Nice try. It's a good thing   
   >>>>> she's dead because if you were her lawyer she would be   
   >>>>> doomed.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The car did NOT jerk we have video that clearly shows it just moved off   
   >>>> in a normal manner.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Moving himself quickly out of the way could produce such a jerk.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So can getting hit by a jerking car.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> But we know what he was supposed to do and he failed to do it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> And you haven't addressed that she was clearly steering away from   
   him..   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Well she's a shitty driver then. Besides she was making a   
   >>>>>>> u turn on a one way street. You defended her by saying she   
   >>>>>>> didn't know it was a one way street. So not only is she a   
   >>>>>>> shitty driver she shouldn't even be driving at all.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> None of that changes that she was steering away from him.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Why was she pointed in that direction in the first place?   
   >>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)