XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: invalid@none.com   
      
   In article <10kmc0g$nduj$11@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   uh@nope.com says...   
   >   
   > On 2026-01-19 14:36, Skeeter wrote:   
   > > In article <10km9o7$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.   
      
   Won't hold up in court.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)