From: Skeeter <invalid@none.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.trump,can.politics
Subject: Re: Here We Go Again...Desperation Is, As Desperation Does - Faggot Can't Argue, So He Chooses To argue Semantics
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2026 17:41:29 -0700
Organization: UTB
In article <10kjrqc$3rq66$17@dont-email.me>, nuh-
uh@nope.com says...
>
> On 2026-01-18 15:52, Skeeter wrote:
> > In article <10kjpuf$3rq66$8@dont-email.me>, nuh-
> > uh@nope.com says...
> >>
> >> On 2026-01-17 15:37, Skeeter wrote:
> >>> In article <10kh336$2tn8q$3@dont-email.me>, nuh-
> >>> uh@nope.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2026-01-15 16:29, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> His: tell us of his training. Tell us what HIS training was when he was about
> >>>>>>>>>>> to be run over by a domestic insurrectionist terrorist, who was blocking him
> >>>>>>>>>>> and his fellow federal agents, from performing his/their duties as ICE agents.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I thought you'd never ask!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 'Chapter 1: General Guidelines
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> WHOSE "guidelines?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The Customs and Border Patrol's "Use of Force Policy".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> All go out the window when someone is trying to run you
> >>>>>>> over.
> >>>>>> No. That is exactly when the policy comes into play.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fuck the policy? You are just looking for an excuse to
> >>>>> hate.
> >>>> The policy exists to protect both law enforcement and citizens.
> >>>>
> >>>> He violated that policy to CREATE a threat.
> >>>
> >>> So you do admit it exists.
> >>
> >> Admit what: that a policy exists which he violated?
> >>
> >> '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.'
> >
> > Admit we don't do court here like you do in commie
> > KKKanada. The jury will also look at the things that
> > happened and the reaction and realize that he was self
> > defending. Happens a lot.
>
> Not when the see he could simply have stepped out of the way.
Nope. Reread what I wrote.