Davin News Server

On 2026-01-18 08:45, Skeeter wrote:
> In article <10khffl$2tnfv$15@dont-email.me>, nuh-
> uh@nope.com says...
>>
>> On 2026-01-17 16:08, Skeeter wrote:
>>> In article <10kh0q6$2tajo$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-
>>> uh@nope.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On 2026-01-16 21:04, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>> In article <10kf3ae$28hf2$10@dont-email.me>, nuh-
>>>>> uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 20:17, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <10kettc$27aph$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-
>>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 18:46, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <10kej2r$23gth$4@dont-email.me>, nuh-
>>>>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 06:58, Socialism is for losers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 22:12:18 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-15 21:56, Socialism is for losers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 03:14:15 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@aol.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skeeter <invalid@none.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:MPG.43d32e5ab2984fa998ab8b@usnews.blocknews.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <10kbt0p$15km6$12@dont-email.me>, nuh-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-14 22:07, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <XnsB3D4DB773BC40629555@185.151.15.160>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noemail@aol.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skeeter <invalid@none.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:MPG.43d1df313a3f71e98ab02@usnews.blocknews.net:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article <10k96l8$8549$14@dont-email.me>, nuh-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-12 09:39, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 23:16:44 -0800,  Alan says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Both criminals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You aren't allowed to shoot at someone when they aren't a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> threat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Correct... I guess.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, no. (see bottom)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if his first shot was when he was near the front of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle, his next two were from directly beside the driver's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> door, and it was turning AWAY from him.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I've explained this, moron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Law enforcement, after having been run over, plowed down,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assaulted with a deadly weapon, vehicularly (Y, IK) assaulted,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or any other term you might want to use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here, usually shoot until the perpetrator is incapacitated or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of range, to keep the driver from doing any more harm to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others or even themselves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except this officer was not "run over" OR "plowed down".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But he was hit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A threat is not "over" just because the vehicle has cleared the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> officer's path.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, actually it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Who says? You?  LOL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Good has already demonstrated her intent (which the officers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did not KNOW) to use a vehicle as a weapon, they remain a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'deadly threat" until they are stopped. Turning "away" could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply be a maneuver to reposition for another strike or to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flee at high speeds, endangering the public.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Her obvious intent was to leave the area and an officer with no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> authority grabbed at her door, escalating the situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No authority? He's a law officer you moron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>            So were the Capitol Police that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trump (and you) want to prosecute.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Like the one that murdered Ashley?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She was breaking into a secure area and posed an immediate threat to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those the police were defending behind that door.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They had guns and she didn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Just like Renee Good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who weaponize her car.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Who was just trying to leave the area.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> By stomping on the gas with a man standing in front of her car?
>>>>>>>>>> By turning her wheel all the way to her right and assuming that a man
>>>>>>>>>> who had been walking to her left would continue to walk left.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And there was no "stomping".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Her tires were spinning on the ice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK... ...but that means she would be moving even MORE slowly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until they grabbed. Obviously you don't drive in the
>>>>>>> winter much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm an excellent winter driver, but that time when they were spinning
>>>>>> would have made it absolutely clear to the "agent" that the vehicle was
>>>>>> about to move.
>>>>>
>>>>> Shit happens fast.
>>>>
>>>> And still, if he hadn't stopped in front of her, he'd never have been hit.
>>>
>>> If she would have followed orders she wouldn't have been
>>> hit.
>> Irrelevant.
>>
>> He deliberately stopped in front of a vehicle that he KNEW was about to
>> move...
> 
> Mind reading again?

Common sense.

Are you trying to tell me that he doesn't recognize that the next step 
of turning back and left is reversing the steering (which he saw) and 
moving off to the right?

>>
>> ...and that was a complete violation of his agency's policies
> 
> POLICIES!
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.'