XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-17 00:24, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   > On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 17:01:42 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 2026-01-16 16:57, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   >>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 16:53:06 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 2026-01-16 16:38, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   >>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>>> No, it jerked ahead.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> There is a video that shows it did not.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> And you haven't addressed that she was clearly steering away from him...   
   >>>>> ...and yet she hit him.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> ...which she wouldn't have been doing if she was "weaponizing her car".   
   >>>>> Nonsense. She had to have known that she'd hit him. She just didn't   
   >>>>> expect that he'd be ready with a gun.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> On the contrary.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> He was clearly moving as she began to back and turn her wheel left.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Then he CHOOSES to stop in front of the left corner of her car and draw   
   >>>> his weapon when one more step to his right would have put him out of any   
   >>>> danger being struck.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Her intent to simply leave can be inferred from the fact that she was   
   >>>> turning away from him. His own cellphone video shows it.   
   >>>   
   >>> I understand your need to misrepresent what happened.   
   >> There is no misrepresentation.   
   >>   
   >> Her clear intention is to complete a turn and leave the area.   
   >   
   > In your opinion, anyway.   
   >   
   >> She waved ICE vehicles by   
   >   
   > And then she stomped on the gas and hit the agent in front of her car.   
   No evidence that she did more than attempt to move off in an ordinary   
   manner. But still irrelevant in light of 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.'   
      
   He had an "objectively reasonable means of defense":   
      
   Taking one more step to his right.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)