XPost: alt.computer.workshop, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com
On Jan 12, 2026 at 9:10:01 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
:
> Brock McNuggets
> news:6965b6fb$6$18$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com Tue, 13 Jan 2026 03:07:39
> GMT in alt.computer.workshop, wrote:
>
>> On Jan 10, 2026 at 7:22:48 AM MST, "NoBody" wrote
>> :
>
>>> She looked right at him as she hit the gas. She tried to murder
>>> *him*.
>>
>> First: she did not. But even if she had -- and remember she did not --
>> that would not be relevant to the fact that he murdered her and should
>> be held accountable to it.
>
> Did you watch the video, Snit?
Yes.
> I would have used lethal force against her as
> well at that point.
I am not surprised that you have poor judgement and self control... but am
somewhat surprised to see you admit to it here. Thank you.
> She actually hit him with her fucking car!
This is not supported by the evidence, but even if it was, it would not make
it right for him to murder her. This has been backed by the supreme court
decision BARNES V. FELIX (May 15, 2025) with a 9-0 decision. The decision was
clear: courts can no longer excuse a police shooting just because the officer
was "in danger at the moment" if the officer created that danger themselves.
But even if you wanted to excuse the first shot, which is contrary to any
decent morality and the law, how do you excuse the second and third? How do
you excuse the failure to allow a doctor to examine her? How do you excuse ICE
going after someone not even they said they believed was a non-citizen, so not
even under their jurisdiction?
You can't. There is no legal nor moral defense of these things.
Facts matter.
> Had I not been
> able to get a clear shot off thru her windshield, I would have followed up
> with a shot thru the driver side window. No question.
Thank you for admitting there is "no question" you would commit murder and act
not only against the law but basic morality. Again, I am happy to see you
admit to this challenge. Now the question is if you are going to seek to do
better.
> She's the one who's
> responsible for her own demise. She didn't have to attempt to drive off after
> being told to stay put.
She was also told to leave, but even if she had not, or I got that wrong,
murder is still not warranted. And they had no jurisdiction over her.
> She damn sure didn't have to aim the cars nose right for the LE.
She did not. Look at the wheels.
> He was within
> his rights to stop her.
Not legally (or morally). And we know you are wrong because he was able to
step aside.
> She actually hit him with the car. And she was already
> being told to get out of the car but made the fatal decision to attempt to
> drive off, hitting him in the process.
Here you admit she was driving off. You also repeat unsupported claims. You do
that a lot.
> Watch the video before you show your
> ass further on this subject. You do not attempt to run someone over and claim
> you were murdered when an armed individual puts a round into you.
Covered above.
> That's
> called self defense for yourself and others. I would have shot her as well
> under those circumstances, and it would have been perfectly legal. She made
> the worst decision possible.
Covered above.
> It's no wonder you have so many tickets for refusing to have proper insurance
> when you've been stopped.
Another example of you flat out lying and promoting doxxing. This is another
of your challenges.
>> But in the backwards world of MAGA, it is somehow acceptable to murder
>> people for not following illegal and contradictory orders.
> She was legally told to get out of the car.
Incorrect. ICE has no jurisdiction over her.
> She attempted to drive off and hit
> the individual with the nose of her car instead. She paid for that with her
> life. Watch the video, Snit. See and hear it go down for yourself. He didn't
> murder her, he acted in self defense for himself and others around. You
should
> consider taking a firearms concealed permit class sometime, you might learn
> something.
Your repeated claims have been covered.
I wrote the above BEFORE I ran your post through ChatGPT. Here is what it said
(in part):
https://chatgpt.com/share/6965d5cf-d078-800c-8cf1-95ee5a398bac
-----
Gremlin asserts as fact that the officer was struck by the
car, that the order to exit was lawful, and that the
shooting was “perfectly legal self defense.” None of those
claims are established by his post or by video alone.
Legality depends on investigation and adjudication, not
personal belief or firearms experience. Police use-of-force
standards are stricter than civilian self-defense, and
noncompliance or flight does not automatically justify
lethal force. The rest of the post relies on speculation,
hindsight bias, and personal attacks rather than verifiable
facts.
-----
You act like seeing these things in your posts is somehow a challenge. You
find it hard to listen when I tell you, and hard when ChatGPT does. Hmmm,
let's try Gemini:
https://gemini.google.com/app/551d6d038cb6b58d
-----
Gremlin (nobody@haph.org) defends the ICE shooting of Renee
Good, claiming the video shows the driver hitting the
officer and justifying the use of lethal force as
self-defense. The post includes tactical fantasies about
"follow-up shots" and shifts into ad hominem attacks against
Snit regarding unrelated driving citations. Fact-checkers
note that video evidence of the car actually "hitting" the
officer is heavily disputed by investigators and experts.
-----
Much the same. Not hard to see.
Please, Gremlin, I am not attacking you here -- I am hoping you will work to
have some self-awareness and speak to a counselor or religious leader or the
like.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with
you.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
