Davin News Server

On 2026-01-17 15:36, Socialism is for losers wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 14:02:48 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2026-01-17 01:54, Socialism is for losers wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 20:27:52 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2026-01-16 20:13, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>> In article <10keu0j$27aph$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-
>>>>> uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 18:51, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <10kelfi$24cdg$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-
>>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 16:17, Socialism is for losers wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 15:54:03 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The car sure jerked ahead as it hit him.
>>>>>>>> Nope. The "officer" might have jerked, but there is video taken from
>>>>>>>> outside the car and it moved off in a completely ordinary manner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It jerked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The officer seems to have jerked in his cellphone video...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...but that doesn't prove that he was struck.
>>>>>
>>>>> The car jerked and so did he. Nice try. It's a good thing
>>>>> she's dead because if you were her lawyer she would be
>>>>> doomed.
>>>>
>>>> The car did NOT jerk we have video that clearly shows it just moved off
>>>> in a normal manner.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Moving himself quickly out of the way could produce such a jerk.
>>>>>
>>>>> So can getting hit by a jerking car.
>>>>
>>>> But we know what he was supposed to do and he failed to do it.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you haven't addressed that she was clearly steering away from him..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well she's a shitty driver then. Besides she was making a
>>>>>>> u turn on a one way street. You defended her by saying she
>>>>>>> didn't know it was a one way street. So not only is she a
>>>>>>> shitty driver she shouldn't even be driving at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of that changes that she was steering away from him.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why was she pointed in that direction in the first place?
>>>>
>>>> Attempting to go back the way she'd come because she came upon an ICE
>>>> operation and thought going back would be best.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...which she wouldn't have been doing if she was "weaponizing her car".
>>>>>
>>>>> Mind reading again?
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Intent can be inferred from actions.
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh you read her mind? How many time have you personally
>>>>>>> been in the same situation? Never? Then STFU.
>>>>>> If her intent was to hit him, she chose a course of action that
>>>>>> absolutely minimized the chance.
>>>>>
>>>>> So? She wasn't the brightest bulb in the box.
>>>> How bright do you have to be to know that turning right is going to make
>>>> it less likely to his someone if that were your intent?
>>>>
>>>> Even YOU are bright enough for that...
>>>>
>>>> ...I think.
>>>
>>> We'll never know what her intent was, and it doesn't matter in the
>>> slightest...
>>>
>>> Here's the facts:
>>>
>>> 1) She knew he was in frront of her car and she drove in such a manner
>>> as to hit him.
>>
>> False. She knew he was MOVING from her right to left and she drove in a
>> manner to avoid him.
> 
>   She knew he was in frront of her car and she drove in such a manner
>   as to hit him.

False, she was steering to the right.

> 
>>> 2) He thought his life was in danger and he shot her.
>>
>> When all the use of force policies specifically say he cannot claim the
>> threat of a vehicle when he could have moved out of the way...
>>
>> ...which he could have.
> 
> Undocumented assumption.

Clear from the video and his position: one step to his left of being 
completely clear of the car.

> 
>>>
>>> 3) She had no compelling reason to drive forward.
>>
>> To exit the area.
> 
> Compelling?
> 
>>> It also doesn't matter in the slightest what he could have done
>>> differently so as not to be in front of her car at the time. The facts
>>> that he was there and that she knew it put her in the wrong for
>>> driving forward and hitting him.
>> She had no reason to believe he'd stop, and her attention was divided at
>> that exact moment by another ICE agent grabbing at her driver's door.
> 
> She knew he was in frront of her car and she drove in such a manner
>   as to hit him.
'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.'