Davin News Server

In article <10kjqbu$3rq8m$15@dont-email.me>, nuh-
uh@nope.com says...
> 
> On 2026-01-16 20:54, Skeeter wrote:
> > In article <10kf27n$28hf2$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-
> > uh@nope.com says...
> >>
> >> On 2026-01-16 20:10, Skeeter wrote:
> >>> In article <10kerfe$268b0$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-
> >>> uh@nope.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2026-01-16 18:03, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>> In article <10keh09$23gue$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-
> >>>>> uh@nope.com says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2026-01-16 15:12, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <10ke2rs$1ui33$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-
> >>>>>>> uh@nope.com says...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 2026-01-16 09:25, AlleyCat wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 15:22:51 -0800,  Alan says...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2026-01-14 22:52, AlleyCat wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://i.imgur.com/Tmcvpwi.mp4
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 15:34:18 -0800,  Alan says...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The "escaping vehicle" posed NO THREAT AT ALL.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> YOU do not know that for a fact, faggot. So... you knew that the roads were
> >>>>>>>>>>> clear all the way to where Good would have gone?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That's the standard?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Did I say that?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yes. That's exactly what you said.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You suggest that it is OK to shoot someone because they might encounter
> >>>>>>>> someone on the road at some point in the future.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No he didn't. You spun it around to sound like that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ummmm...nope!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "you knew that the roads were clear all the way to where Good would have
> >>>>>> gone?"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That is Loser explicitly claiming that shooting her was justified by the
> >>>>>> mere possibility that she'd encounter someone else on the road and just
> >>>>>> randomly decide to run them down.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You sure can turn a mole hill into a mountain.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why was she making a U Turn/3 point turn on a one way
> >>>>>>> street?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because she initially thought it wasn't a one way street.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As she was driving down a "one way street"?  The street
> >>>>> had a lot of cars. Why would she decide to turn around and
> >>>>> it just by coincidence that there were ICE agents right
> >>>>> there doing their job when her wife started running and
> >>>>> taunting ICE. But you losers claim she didn't know who he
> >>>>> was. Are you that stupid?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Why didn't you address the fact that you first claimed it
> >>>>>>> was a U Turn and now call it a 3 point turn? Maybe you
> >>>>>>> should give yourself a break. You seem confused.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please. "U-turn" can generically mean to turn around on a road.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On a one way street? Was it a U Turn or a 3 point turn?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes.
> >>>>
> >>>> I know this will come as a surprise to you, but people can make mistakes.
> >>>
> >>> It had lots of cars all going the same direction.
> >>
> >> True. So?
> > 
> > So why was she trying to turn around? I just shot your
> > bullshit story all to hell with your help.
> >>
> >>> She knew
> >>> where she was.
> >>
> >> How do you know that?
> > 
> > Ask her wife. Now tell me how you knew what she was doing
> > and thinking.
> >>
> >>> If she didn't she shouldn't be driving and
> >>> that makes her a danger to herself and others.
> >>
> >> You think that otherwise completely competent drivers never find
> >> themselves on streets that they're not familiar with?
> > 
> > But you said she dropped her kid off at school and was
> > heading home. So she knew where she was. You really suck
> > at this. You keep shooting yourself in the foot.
> > 
In court theis is Alan:
> 
> All of that is irrelevant in light of 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.'
> 
> He had an "objectively reasonable means of defense":
> 
> Taking one more step to his right.


The jusr and judge: Not guilty.