From: NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.trump,can.politics
Subject: Re: Desperation Is, As Desperation Does
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2026 09:52:10 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 14:25:57 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>On 2026-01-17 06:38, NoBody wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 11:19:59 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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...
>>>
>>
>> Love how you armchair ICE agent.
>>
>> She reversed such that the vehicle was pointing towards him.
>
>As he was walking to her left.
Good so you now admit she pointed her vehicle at him.
This is a start for you.
>
>> She gunned the gas so much that her tires spun.
>
>The road was slippery.
Yeah...duh. I'm sure you were trying to make a point...
>
>> She actually DID hit him.
>
>That is unproven.
LAUGHTER! All the video footage proves you to be a fool.
>
>>
>>> ...and therefore AWAY from him.
>>
>> Irrelevent since she weaponized her vehicle.
>> Justified use of force.
>
>Not according to any use of force policy that he could have been
>operating under
Quote the exact relevant passage that says it doesn't.
>
>>
>>>
>>> She saw a man moving across from her right to left, and how was she to
>>> know he'd stop moving?
>>
>> Guess she should have made sure he was clear before she tried to run.
>
>Maybe she would have if another agent hadn't rushed up with no warning
>and grabbed her driver's side door.
>
LAUGHTER!
It's a crime to flee from the police.
Duh.
>>
>> This is basic logic here and you blame HIM for HER decisions.
>
>I blame HIM for HIS decisions.
Laughter!
>
>Specifically:
>
>The decision to stop in front of a vehicle that was in motion a moment
>before and which he could see from the fact that she was steering to her
>right was going to be in motion again in another moment...
Pick a video of your choosing and tell me the timestamps that you are
referring.
>
>...in direct violation of policies regarding tactical positioning of
>agents in such situations.
>
Laughter! He was already aside...until SHE changed that.
>
>The decision to treat a vehicle as a threat when a step to his left
>would have completely obviated the need to use deadly force...
>
This armchair quarterbacking of yours is just silliness or stupidity
(pick one).
>...in direct violation of his use of force policies.
>
>Shall I quote them again for you?
Please quote ONLY the relevent sentences that say if a vehicle is
proceeding towards you and your life is in danger that you are not
allowed to use lethal force.