XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump
From: nuh-uh@nope.com
On 2026-01-19 14:49, Skeeter wrote:
> 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.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
