XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: invalid@none.com   
      
   In article <10kjpi1$3rq8m$7@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   uh@nope.com says...   
   >   
   > 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.'   
      
   POLICIES   SQUAWK  POLICIES!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)