XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump
From: nuh-uh@nope.com
On 2026-01-19 14:36, Skeeter wrote:
> 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.
He had a duty to step aside if doing so was "reasonable" and it
certainly was.
He didn't just stand where he was and then get struck:
He was walking out of the conflict area and stopped while he could SEE
she was turning the wheel away from where he would have been.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
