XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: invalid@none.com   
      
   In article <10kjsfd$3rq66$25@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   uh@nope.com says...   
   >   
   > 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?   
      
   She was there to incite. Proof of that is her wife acting   
   like a banshee.   
   >   
   > I'm going to spoon feed this to you because you're too dim to understand   
   > any other way.   
      
      
   Keep your spoon cupcake. I don't eat shit. And that's all   
   you have to offer.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)