XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-18 15:52, Skeeter wrote:   
   > In article <10kjq10$3rq8m$9@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   > uh@nope.com says...   
   >>   
   >> On 2026-01-17 15:36, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>> In article <10kh200$2tnfv$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> 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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> There was and she was there for a reason. That reason got   
   >>> her killed.   
   >>   
   >> So you're admitting the shot at her for the reason YOU imagine?   
   >   
   > What?   
      
   You said "she was there for a reason". Ergo, you imagine you know what   
   that reason is. Do you have a belief about that?   
      
   I'm going to spoon feed this to you because you're too dim to understand   
   any other way.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)