XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-18 15:43, Skeeter wrote:   
   > 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!   
      
   Policies matter.   
      
   He violated one and manufactured cause to use deadly force as a result.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)