XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: invalid@none.com   
      
   In article <10kjpjj$3rq8m$8@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   uh@nope.com says...   
   >   
   > On 2026-01-18 04:39, AlleyCat wrote:   
   > >   
   > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 15:47:25 -0800,  Alan says...   
   > >   
   > >>   
   > >> On 2026-01-16 09:24, AlleyCat wrote:   
   > >>>   
   > >>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 16:07:58 -0700,  Skeeter says...   
   > >>>   
   > >>>>> She was a citizen attempting to turn around and depart the area.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> You read minds now?   
   > >>>   
   > >>> He's always thought he could read minds.   
   > >> I don't need to read minds.   
   > >>   
   > >> The "officer's" own cellphone video shows her turning hard to her right...   
   > >   
   > > ...and running RIGHT into him, hard.   
   >   
   > Nope. It shows the phone suddenly moving, but that proves nothing.   
      
   But but but what about the POLICIES?   
   >   
   > >   
   > > Her "intentions" and his actions have NOTHING to do with that FACT, faggot.   
   > 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.'   
   >   
   > Your own lame post mentioned this, but you didn't notice.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)