XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump
From: invalid@none.com
In article <10kjrd1$3rq66$15@dont-email.me>, nuh-
uh@nope.com says...
>
> 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.
Never work in court.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
