XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump
From: invalid@none.com
In article <10kjp9e$3rq8m$3@dont-email.me>, nuh-
uh@nope.com says...
>
> On 2026-01-18 08:45, Skeeter wrote:
> > In article <10khffl$2tnfv$15@dont-email.me>, nuh-
> > uh@nope.com says...
> >>
> >> On 2026-01-17 16:08, Skeeter wrote:
> >>> In article <10kh0q6$2tajo$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-
> >>> uh@nope.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2026-01-16 21:04, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>> In article <10kf3ae$28hf2$10@dont-email.me>, nuh-
> >>>>> uh@nope.com says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2026-01-16 20:17, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <10kettc$27aph$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-
> >>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 18:46, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <10kej2r$23gth$4@dont-email.me>, nuh-
> >>>>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 06:58, Socialism is for losers wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 22:12:18 -0800, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-15 21:56, Socialism is for losers wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 03:14:15 +0000, Mitchell Holman
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skeeter wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:MPG.43d32e5ab2984fa998ab8b@usnews.blocknews.net:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <10kbt0p$15km6$12@dont-email.me>, nuh-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-14 22:07, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article ,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noemail@aol.com says...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skeeter wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:MPG.43d1df313a3f71e98ab02@usnews.blocknews.net:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <10k96l8$8549$14@dont-email.me>, nuh-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-12 09:39, AlleyCat wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 23:16:44 -0800, Alan says...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both criminals.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You aren't allowed to shoot at someone when they
aren't a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threat.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct... I guess.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, no. (see bottom)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if his first shot was when he was near the front
of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle, his next two were from directly beside the
driver's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> door, and it was turning AWAY from him.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I've explained this, moron.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Law enforcement, after having been run over, plowed
down,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assaulted with a deadly weapon, vehicularly (Y, IK)
assaulted,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or any other term you might want to use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here, usually shoot until the perpetrator is
incapacitated or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of range, to keep the driver from doing any more
harm to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others or even themselves.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except this officer was not "run over" OR "plowed down".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But he was hit.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A threat is not "over" just because the vehicle has
cleared the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> officer's path.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, actually it is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who says? You? LOL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Good has already demonstrated her intent (which the
officers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did not KNOW) to use a vehicle as a weapon, they
remain a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'deadly threat" until they are stopped. Turning "away"
could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply be a maneuver to reposition for another strike
or to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flee at high speeds, endangering the public.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Her obvious intent was to leave the area and an officer
with no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority grabbed at her door, escalating the situation.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No authority? He's a law officer you moron.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So were the Capitol Police that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump (and you) want to prosecute.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like the one that murdered Ashley?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She was breaking into a secure area and posed an immediate
threat to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those the police were defending behind that door.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They had guns and she didn't.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just like Renee Good.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> who weaponize her car.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Who was just trying to leave the area.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> By stomping on the gas with a man standing in front of her car?
> >>>>>>>>>> By turning her wheel all the way to her right and assuming that a
man
> >>>>>>>>>> who had been walking to her left would continue to walk left.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> And there was no "stomping".
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Her tires were spinning on the ice.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> OK... ...but that means she would be moving even MORE slowly.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Until they grabbed. Obviously you don't drive in the
> >>>>>>> winter much.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm an excellent winter driver, but that time when they were spinning
> >>>>>> would have made it absolutely clear to the "agent" that the vehicle
was
> >>>>>> about to move.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Shit happens fast.
> >>>>
> >>>> And still, if he hadn't stopped in front of her, he'd never have been
hit.
> >>>
> >>> If she would have followed orders she wouldn't have been
> >>> hit.
> >> Irrelevant.
> >>
> >> He deliberately stopped in front of a vehicle that he KNEW was about to
> >> move...
> >
> > Mind reading again?
>
> Common sense.
>
> Are you trying to tell me that he doesn't recognize that the next step
> of turning back and left is reversing the steering (which he saw) and
> moving off to the right?
You are only making me laugh now.
>
> >>
> >> ...and that was a complete violation of his agency's policies
> >
> > POLICIES!
> 2. Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
