Davin News Server

On 2026-01-18 15:00, Skeeter wrote:
> 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?

Irrelevant to what we were discussing.

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...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.

You're lying.

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
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.'