From: Skeeter <invalid@none.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.trump,can.politics
Subject: Re: Liberal Faggot... Wrong Again
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2026 16:45:09 -0700
Organization: UTB
In article <10kjpmr$3rq66$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-
uh@nope.com says...
>
> On 2026-01-17 15:55, Socialism is for losers wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 14:20:48 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > She knew he was in frront of her car and she drove in such a manner
> > as to hit him.
> >
>
> If that were true, she wouldn't have steered to her right.
She hit him this is settled.
>
> >> 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.
>
> No answer for that, huh?
Begging for attention?
>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> 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.
> Or this.
>
> '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.'