Davin News Server

On 2026-01-18 15:55, Skeeter wrote:
> 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.

He had a reasonable means of avoiding a threat even if one had been 
intended. All he had to do was not stop walking where he did.