Davin News Server

In article <10kjo80$3qsla$6@dont-email.me>, nuh-
uh@nope.com says...
> 
> On 2026-01-18 06:52, NoBody wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I admit she was reversing to complete a turn that would finish by 
> driving away to her right.
> 
> > 
> >>
> >>> 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...
> 
> That a slippery road means you don't have to "gun" the accelerator to 
> spin the wheels.
> 
> > 
> >>
> >>> She actually DID hit him.
> >>
> >> That is unproven.
> > 
> > LAUGHTER!  All the video footage proves you to be a fool.
> 
> Show a single frame of ANY video that shows the actual alleged contact.
> 
> > 
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> ...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.
> 
> I already have, but...
> 
> ...straight from the DHS website:
> 
> '1-16.200 - USE OF DEADLY FORCE AND PROHIBITED RESTRAINT TECHNIQUES
> 
> ...
> 
> 2. Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. 
> Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: 
> (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person 
> with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is 
> operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical 
> injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable 
> means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path 
> of the vehicle.'
> 
> Read that last part until you get it:
> 
> 'and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, 
> which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.'
> 
> <https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force>
> 
> > 
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> 
> Irrelevant to whether shooting her was justified.
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> His own cellphone video:
> 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QYKTTEMf-Q>
> 
> At 25 seconds, you can see in HIS OWN VIDEO that she is steering her 
> wheel to the vehicle's right.

Then why was she sideways in the road?
> 
> > 
> >>
> >> ...in direct violation of policies regarding tactical positioning of
> >> agents in such situations.
> >>
> > 
> > Laughter!  He was already aside...until SHE changed that.
> 
> False. He was walking from the right side of her car towards the left 
> side even before she began moving.

And she hit him.
> 
> At 21 seconds of the same video, you can see him continuing to circle 
> the car BEFORE she starts moving backward with the steering turned to 
> her left.

Bullshit. We saw what we saw you commie prick.
> 
> > 
> >>
> >> 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.
> 
> Done already.

You are losing.