XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.trump   
   From: katt@gmail.com   
      
   On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 14:41:50 -0800, Alan says...   
      
   > > The video didn't show that.   
      
   "THE" video? No.   
      
   https://i.imgur.com/rfRJxrO.mp4   
      
   > And the video didn't show anyone down the road she could hit after she'd   
   > been shot...   
      
   That's a claim. PROVE there was no one down the street.   
      
   How about I do it for you? This is the first video I came across. I'm sure   
   there are plenty more.   
      
   https://i.imgur.com/fCdXA5S.jpeg   
      
   You're obviously looking at ONE video and ignoring the rest, just so you can   
   make your point. Lying by omission (not referencing other videos), is still   
   lying. Just because YOU don't see someone in one blurry shot doesn't mean the   
   street was empty. The video I used to make the still, PROVES there were people   
   and cars less than a block away.   
      
   NO ONE said anything about the people 'down the road" having to be   
   pedestrians, but I'm showing at least one. YOU do not know if there weren't   
   any more, so your OPINION doesn't matter.   
      
   As you can see, Good also smashed a car in the process. What if there was a   
   mother and child in that car? YOU can't say that there was "no one" down the   
   street, when it's obvious, people WERE down the street, possibly on foot, but   
   what about the traffic or parked cars with people in them?   
      
   LEO shoots those who are about to run them down for many reasons. They don't   
   have the time to contemplate them all.   
      
   This has been explained to you, faggot.   
      
   https://i.imgur.com/fCdXA5S.jpeg   
      
   =============================================================================   
      
   The legal standard for use of force (based on Graham v. Connor) doesn't   
   require an officer to be 100% certain a bystander will be hit; it requires   
   that a reasonable officer on the scene would perceive an immediate threat.   
      
   The Supreme Court doesn't care about your 'hindsight.' They care about what a   
   REASONABLE OFFICER sees in the moment. And since I just proved there were   
   people there, the officer was legally justified to stop that threat.   
      
   By showing the pedestrians and other cars, I established that a 'modicum" of   
   danger existed.   
      
   Anecdotal evidence suggests what most officers go through when facing down an   
   SUV which is a 4,000lb weapon. If Good was already ramming cars (as most   
   videos show), she has already shown a total disregard for human life. The   
   agents don't have to wait for her to actually strike a pedestrian to   
   intervene.   
      
   I mentioned the agent didn't have time to contemplate. That is a HUGE factor.   
      
   In high-stress situations, officers go through the OODA Loop (Observe, Orient,   
   Decide, Act).   
      
   While you have hours to pause a video and look for people in the background...   
   the agent had mere seconds. If the agent sees a crowded street or even one   
   pedestrian, they have to make a choice immediately before the vehicle gains   
   more momentum.   
      
   In this case, he didn't HAVE the luxury of looking around to see what's what,   
   so he did what he's been TRAINED to do.   
      
   If you don't like that... take it up with the Supreme Court.   
      
   The Supreme Court doesn't care about YOUR hindsight. They care about what a   
   REASONABLE OFFICER sees in the moment. And since I just proved there were   
   people there, the officer was legally justified to stop that threat.   
      
   You're always trying to shift the burden of proof to someone else in the hopes   
   that someone will express their opinion JUST to make your OPINION seem   
   relevant. It's not.   
      
   "Our" logic holds up better than your fucking OPINION.   
      
   I realize it's impossible to prove a "negative" (that there was no one there),   
   but *I* have provided positive evidence that shows there WERE people down the   
   street.   
      
   Once I showed you ONE pedestrian and/or one occupied vehicle (cars waiting at   
   the light), your "no one was there" argument is now factually dead.   
      
   Parked cars are not always empty. YOU can't tell from a distance if a parked   
   car has a driver inside or a child in the back, so your OPINION means   
   absolutely NOTHING.   
      
   Also, moron... a suspect fleeing at high speed is statistically more dangerous   
   to the public than the use of force used to stop them.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)