Davin News Server

On 2026-01-17 16:05, Skeeter wrote:
> In article <10kh30s$2tn8q$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-
> uh@nope.com says...
>>
>> On 2026-01-15 16:31, Skeeter wrote:
>>> In article <10kbv40$15km4$22@dont-email.me>, nuh-
>>> uh@nope.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On 2026-01-15 15:55, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>> In article <10kbs60$15km6$5@dont-email.me>, nuh-
>>>>> uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2026-01-15 15:08, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <10kbpr2$15km4$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-
>>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-15 13:12, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <10kbi85$122uj$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-
>>>>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>>>>>> He chose to remain there when a single step to his right would have
>>>>>>>>>> taken him out of the danger area.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and she would still be alive if shw just would have
>>>>>>>>> followed orders.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What "order" was she given?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Get out of the car.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Show a video where that is heard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've watched the videos: there was not order given to her.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There was. Why did you ignore the video of her "wife"
>>>>>>> taunting the agents?
>>>>>> How is it relevant?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Taunting" is most definitely free speech.
>>>>>
>>>>> You ignored that. You ignored that she was running around
>>>>> the car doing it while the other bitch was making a
>>>>> "turn"?
>>>> What relevance is it to the fact that in contravention of policy, the
>>>> "agent" stopped in front of the vehicle that he could see was about to
>>>> move ahead?
>>>
>>> Plenty, it shows intent.
>>
>> It shows his intent to create a threat in order to have a reason to shoot.
> 
> So you read his mind too?

Again: inferred from his ACTIONS.

He was walking and CHOSE to stop in front of her at the time he KNEW she 
would be moving away to his left.