XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump
From: invalid@none.com
In article <10km9o7$nduj$4@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com
says...
>
> 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?
Enough to know you need more than your "policies"
bullshit.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
