From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.trump,can.politics
Subject: Re: Liberal Faggot... Wrong Again
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2026 15:23:11 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2026-01-17 15:36, Skeeter wrote:
> In article <10kh200$2tnfv$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-
> uh@nope.com says...
>>
>> On 2026-01-17 00:26, Socialism is for losers wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 17:06:56 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2026-01-16 16:43, Socialism is for losers wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 16:35:41 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 15:53, Socialism is for losers wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 15:43:39 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 09:25, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 15:17:39 -0800, Alan says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was in the Queen's York Rangers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Uhhh... NO ONE gives a shit.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Had a lot of people trying to run you over in cars, did you?
>>>>>>>> Nope. But she wasn't trying to run him over.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> She wouldn't have turned the wheel all the way to the right if she was.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You think you could read her mind?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only available facts are that she hit him and he killed her.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can read the fact that a man was walking to her left and she was
>>>>>> steering to the right. Those are facts too.
>>>>>
>>>>> He was not walking when she hit him.
>>>> That's my point: he stopped.
>>>>
>>>> When all the use of force policies explicitly state you shouldn't stop
>>>> in front of a vehicle...
>>>>
>>>> ...he stopped.
>>>
>>> and she hit him.
>>
>> That remains unproven.
>>
>> But stopping was specifically called out in the use of force policies as
>> something he SHOULD NOT DO, and also that using deadly force against a
>> vehicle is only permissible when the agent cannot avoid being hit...
>>
>> ...which he could have by taking one more step.
>>
>> Customs and Border Patrol were called out in a 2013 report specifically
>> for stopping in front of vehicles and then using that as a justification
>> for shooting people.
>>
>>>
>>>> One more step to his right / her left and he is completely clear of any
>>>> possible conflict.
>>>
>>> Had she obeyed the commands she would still be alive.
>> There was no command to stop.
>
> There was and she was there for a reason. That reason got
> her killed.
So you're admitting the shot at her for the reason YOU imagine?