Davin News Server

On 2026-01-18 15:43, Skeeter wrote:
> 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!

Policies matter.

He violated one and manufactured cause to use deadly force as a result.