Davin News Server

In article <10kjpi1$3rq8m$7@dont-email.me>, nuh-
uh@nope.com says...
> 
> On 2026-01-18 06:58, NoBody wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 14:06:47 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 2026-01-17 06:56, NoBody wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 20:17:15 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2026-01-16 19:44, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>> In article <10kes86$26qks$5@dont-email.me>, nuh-
> >>>>> uh@nope.com says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2026-01-16 18:14, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <10keiop$23gth$3@dont-email.me>, nuh-
> >>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 09:24, AlleyCat wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ... and say this.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 14:34:23 -0800,  Alan says...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Road?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://i.imgur.com/OC9smu9.mp4
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://i.imgur.com/Lfbiqwg.jpeg
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> See those people standing thar, stoopit? WHAT are they standing on?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Were any of those people in the direction she intended to travel?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sure they were.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> How do YOU know where Good was "intending to travel"?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You don't.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I was making an illustrative point. YOU moved the goalposts, as usual, with
> >>>>>>>>> your fallacy of the specific.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> She could have gone down the street MADE A 3-POINT TURN and came back at the
> >>>>>>>>> officers, them, having to draw the weapons again and shoot her again.
> >>>>>>>> So by pretending you know her intent was to run over an "officer"...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well you seem to be able to read minds you tell us.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So when he states her intent he's NOT reading minds?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> BUTWHATABOUT!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ...you then pretend they need to protect against future "attacks".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> She was turning away from the officer, doofus.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On a one way street on a very icy road. No telling what
> >>>>>>> could happen.
> >>>>>> Actually there is "telling" that the car could not have gone to its left
> >>>>>> with the wheels turned right.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But it went straight.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, it most certainly did not. COULD not have with the wheels turned all
> >>>> the way to the right.
> >>>
> >>> But you claim he was standing in front.  If she turned she wouldn't
> >>> have him with the front headlight.
> >>>> You can't have things both ways dingdong.
> >>
> >> 1. We don't know that he was actually hit.
> >>
> > 
> > LAUGHTER.
> > Yeah sure.  All the videos were edited...
> 
> Show a video that actually shows any contact.
> 
> > 
> >> 2. But if he'd been standing close enough he COULD have been hit.
> > 
> > He WAS hit.
> 
> Unproven at this point.
> 
> > 
> >>
> >> Seriously, this isn't tough to have figured out on your own, numbnuts.
> > 
> > Oh I've already figured out the facts.  It's just you and a couple of
> > liberal dingdongs who haven't.
> 
> 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.'
> 
> 
> > 
> >>
> >> But neither changes the fact that her intent can be inferred from her
> >> actions.
> > 
> > Intent is irrelevent in this case.  The actions taken by her is the
> > only evidence necessary.
> 
> 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.'

POLICIES   SQUAWK  POLICIES!