Davin News Server

On 2026-01-18 15:37, Skeeter wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 

I'm not going to court, doofus. Neither is Renee Good...

...because she was MURDERED.

The officer SHOULD go to court, because he had no need to employ deadly 
force.