Davin News Server

In article <10kjp72$3rq8m$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-
uh@nope.com says...
> 
> 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.

You mean you want to ignore it because it brings up 
questions.
> 
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ...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.

Nope. I also watched your peaceful protesters beat the 
hell out of two people last night just because they didn't 
agree. Today they stormed a church. A church fer 
chrissake. A bunch of brainwashed domestic terrorists.
> 
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.'


POLICY'S!!!!  SQUAWK  POLICY'S!!!!
> 
> 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.'

If this is all you have for a defense then you will lose 
in court.