XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: invalid@none.com   
      
   In article <10kjrqc$3rq66$17@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   uh@nope.com says...   
   >   
   > On 2026-01-18 15:52, Skeeter wrote:   
   > > In article <10kjpuf$3rq66$8@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   > > uh@nope.com says...   
   > >>   
   > >> On 2026-01-17 15:37, Skeeter wrote:   
   > >>> In article <10kh336$2tn8q$3@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   > >>> uh@nope.com says...   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> On 2026-01-15 16:29, Skeeter wrote:   
   > >>>>>>>>>>> His: tell us of his training. Tell us what HIS training was when   
   he was about   
   > >>>>>>>>>>> to be run over by a domestic insurrectionist terrorist, who was   
   blocking him   
   > >>>>>>>>>>> and his fellow federal agents, from performing his/their duties   
   as ICE agents.   
   > >>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>> I thought you'd never ask!   
   > >>>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>>> 'Chapter 1: General Guidelines   
   > >>>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>> WHOSE "guidelines?   
   > >>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>> The Customs and Border Patrol's "Use of Force Policy".   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>> All go out the window when someone is trying to run you   
   > >>>>>>> over.   
   > >>>>>> No. That is exactly when the policy comes into play.   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> Fuck the policy? You are just looking for an excuse to   
   > >>>>> hate.   
   > >>>> The policy exists to protect both law enforcement and citizens.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> He violated that policy to CREATE a threat.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> So you do admit it exists.   
   > >>   
   > >> Admit what: that a policy exists which he violated?   
   > >>   
   > >> '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.'   
   > >   
   > > Admit we don't do court here like you do in commie   
   > > KKKanada. The jury will also look at the things that   
   > > happened and the reaction and realize that he was self   
   > > defending. Happens a lot.   
   >   
   > Not when the see he could simply have stepped out of the way.   
      
   Nope. Reread what I wrote.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)