XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump
From: nuh-uh@nope.com
On 2026-01-18 16:36, Skeeter wrote:
> 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.
So you're a lawyer now?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
