XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: invalid@none.com   
      
   In article <10kmhbm$n7db$25@dont-email.me>, nuh-   
   uh@nope.com says...   
   >   
   > On 2026-01-19 15:57, Skeeter wrote:   
   > > In article <10kmdjt$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!   
      
   Any one with common sense know it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)