XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-19 15:57, Skeeter wrote:   
   > In article <10kmdjt$nduj$23@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   > uh@nope.com says...   
   >>   
   >> On 2026-01-18 16:49, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>> In article <10kjsq7$3rq66$31@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> On 2026-01-18 16:04, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>>>> In article <10kjrtg$3rq66$19@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>>>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 2026-01-17 16:04, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>>>>>> In article <10kh2io$2tn8q$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 20:31, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> In article <10kf2eh$28hf2$4@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>>>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 19:44, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>> In article <10kerg2$268b0$3@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>>>>>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 18:03, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <10keh5c$23gue$3@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 14:25, Skeeter wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <10ke30v$1ui33$3@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 04:30, NoBody wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Authorized Officers/Agents should avoid intentionally   
   and   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which   
   they have no   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative to using deadly force.'   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He did.  SHE changed that equation.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He chose to remain there when a single step to his right   
   would have   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken him out of the danger area.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Laughter!   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I love how you pretend to be an armchair expert on what   
   could or could   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not have been done.  She weaponized her vehicle and he   
   perceived a   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threat to his life and safety.  Legit shoot.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If she'd intended to drive into him, she wouldn't have been   
   turning her   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steering wheel hard to the right...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and therefore AWAY from him.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She saw a man moving across from her right to left, and how   
   was she to   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know he'd stop moving?   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She knew exactly who he was. Stop playing stupid. Idiots   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like you trying to say "she had no idea who he was" yet he   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was wearing a uniform and her bitch wife was running   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around taunting them So that lie is debunked.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point you missed was that he was MOVING, and if he KEPT   
   moving, he   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have been out of the way.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was using "man" in the generic sense, not to suggest she   
   didn't know   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> he was with ICE.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh she knew.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> I know that.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> I was never trying to deny it.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>> You tried and failed. He was wearing an ICE uniform fer   
   >>>>>>>>>>> crissakes.   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> My POINT at the time was that the driver saw SOMEONE moving to her   
   left   
   >>>>>>>>>> when she was intending to go right. It doesn't matter WHO that   
   someone was.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> It dod to her.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Nope. Not regarding the question of her intent.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Her intent was to agitate ICE agents.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Even if that were true, it's no justification for shooting her or even   
   >>>>>> arresting her.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> That intent will be important in court. You just don't get   
   >>>>> it do you?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What was his intent in stopping when he'd been moving out of the way?   
   >>>   
   >>> Out of the way of what?   
   >>   
   >> Of the vehicle. As his manual on tactical operations around a vehicle   
   >> demanded.   
   >   
   > Never hold in court.   
      
   So speaks the law degree!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)