XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: invalid@none.com   
      
   In article <10kjpmr$3rq66$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   uh@nope.com says...   
   >   
   > On 2026-01-17 15:55, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   > > On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 14:20:48 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> 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.   
   > >   
   > > She knew he was in frront of her car and she drove in such a manner   
   > >   as to hit him.   
   > >   
   >   
   > If that were true, she wouldn't have steered to her right.   
      
   She hit him this is settled.   
   >   
   > >> 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.   
   >   
   > No answer for that, huh?   
      
   Begging for attention?   
   >   
   > >>   
   > >>>   
   > >>>> 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.   
   > Or 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.'   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)