XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-18 16:56, Skeeter wrote:   
   > In article <10kjsfd$3rq66$25@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   > uh@nope.com says...   
   >>   
   >> On 2026-01-18 15:52, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>> In article <10kjq10$3rq8m$9@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> On 2026-01-17 15:36, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>>>> In article <10kh200$2tnfv$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>>>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 2026-01-17 00:26, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 17:06:56 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 16:43, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 16:35:41 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 15:53, Socialism is for losers wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 15:43:39 -0800, Alan  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 09:25, AlleyCat wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 15:17:39 -0800,  Alan says...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was in the Queen's York Rangers.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Uhhh... NO ONE gives a shit.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Had a lot of people trying to run you over in cars, did you?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. But she wasn't trying to run him over.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> She wouldn't have turned the wheel all the way to the right if   
   she was.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> You think you could read her mind?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> The only available facts are that she hit him and he killed her.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> I can read the fact that a man was walking to her left and she was   
   >>>>>>>>>> steering to the right. Those are facts too.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> He was not walking when she hit him.   
   >>>>>>>> That's my point: he stopped.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> When all the use of force policies explicitly state you shouldn't stop   
   >>>>>>>> in front of a vehicle...   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> ...he stopped.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> and she hit him.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> That remains unproven.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> But stopping was specifically called out in the use of force policies as   
   >>>>>> something he SHOULD NOT DO, and also that using deadly force against a   
   >>>>>> vehicle is only permissible when the agent cannot avoid being hit...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> ...which he could have by taking one more step.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Customs and Border Patrol were called out in a 2013 report specifically   
   >>>>>> for stopping in front of vehicles and then using that as a justification   
   >>>>>> for shooting people.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> One more step to his right / her left and he is completely clear of   
   any   
   >>>>>>>> possible conflict.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Had she obeyed the commands she would still be alive.   
   >>>>>> There was no command to stop.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> There was and she was there for a reason. That reason got   
   >>>>> her killed.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So you're admitting the shot at her for the reason YOU imagine?   
   >>>   
   >>> What?   
   >>   
   >> You said "she was there for a reason". Ergo, you imagine you know what   
   >> that reason is. Do you have a belief about that?   
   >   
   > She was there to incite. Proof of that is her wife acting   
   > like a banshee.   
      
   The wife wasn't even raising her voice.   
      
   But let's move on.   
   So you are claiming that the reason there was to "incite" and that the   
   "reason got her killed".   
      
   That is an explicit claim that it had nothing to do with self-defense,   
   cupcake.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)