Trump Sets Up Members Of Congress By Releasing Completely Unredacted Epstein Files......And They Fell Into The Trap

Are we talking about the same shooting? You mean that lesbian that ran over that ICE guy with the Honda? Or another one?
1771286990285.webp
 

You obviously don't understand what "solely to stop the car" means. That would mean a traffic stop where the guy takes off he can't start trying to shoot at the tires and shit. THAT'S what that means. Not once someone tries to run you over, you can only shoot when they're in the process of running you over. Damn you're stupid.

Ok she tried to run over him with her car. He is under no obligation to stop shooting at her once she hits 90 degrees to where he is. She tried to kill him, he can kill her.

Where do you ******* liberals get this idea that citizens can try to kill cops and when they do, the cops hands are tied when and how they can shoot to defend themselves?
 
He didn't shoot solely to disable the vehicle, he shot to stop the ******* thing from running over him.
Only one shot was made from the front, which would have been to try and stop the vehicle, even though it wasn't going very fast, and trying to hit him.
But the second and third shots were after he was well clear of the vehicles path.
 
Only one shot was made from the front, which would have been to try and stop the vehicle, even though it wasn't going very fast, and trying to hit him.
But the second and third shots were after he was well clear of the vehicles path.

Good. She tried to run over him. He's trying to stop someone who is guilty of attempted murder. That's not "solely to stop the vehicle."

Please, liberals, don't quote policy that you don't even understand. It makes you look like an idiot.
 
You obviously don't understand what "solely to stop the car" means. That would mean a traffic stop where the guy takes off he can't start trying to shoot at the tires and shit. THAT'S what that means. Not once someone tries to run you over, you can only shoot when they're in the process of running you over. Damn you're stupid.

Ok she tried to run over him with her car. He is under no obligation to stop shooting at her once she hits 90 degrees to where he is. She tried to kill him, he can kill her.

Where do you ******* liberals get this idea that citizens can try to kill cops and when they do, the cops hands are tied when and how they can shoot to defend themselves?
The law allows lethal force to stop lethal force or force that can cause serious injury.
Once the danger over, so is the permission to use lethal force.
The exception is if the person escaping is a fleeing felon who committed, and likely to commit another serious assault on the public if allowed to escape.

Your stereotypical "armed and dangerous"

The courts ruled that an officer can't use lethal force if he purposefully puts himself in front of a vehicle, in order to create the situation that puts him in danger.
 
The law allows lethal force to stop lethal force or force that can cause serious injury.
Once the danger over, so is the permission to use lethal force.
The exception is if the person escaping is a fleeing felon who committed, and likely to commit another serious assault on the public if allowed to escape.

Your stereotypical "armed and dangerous"

The courts ruled that an officer can't use lethal force if he purposefully puts himself in front of a vehicle, in order to create the situation that puts him in danger.

The danger was not over. She was still in her vehicle, still moving, hauling ass in fact. It's the same as you saying a guy with a gun shooting at a cop is suddenly no longer a threat because he stops shooting.

Damn you're stupid.
 
The danger was not over. She was still in her vehicle, still moving, hauling ass in fact. It's the same as you saying a guy with a gun shooting at a cop is suddenly no longer a threat because he stops shooting.

Damn you're stupid.
The danger was indeed over. Once she drove past him, he was no longer in danger, and she had no history of assaulting people with her vehicle.
There was no probable chance that she would run people over, if allowed to escape.
 
The danger was indeed over. Once she drove past him, he was no longer in danger, and she had no history of assaulting people with her vehicle.
There was no probable chance that she would run people over, if allowed to escape.

Really? So there was no chance of her turning the car around and trying to ram him a 2nd time?

Again, you're a ******* idiot.
 
It's the same as you saying a guy with a gun shooting at a cop is suddenly no longer a threat because he stops shooting.

Damn you're stupid.
Actually it's not on the same planet.
Someone armed with a gun can continue using it as they escape.
 
If they asked him in the middle of the Maxwell prosecution and appeal, he would have sited the ongoing case exclusion from release.

files in the middle of an ongoing prosecution, is generally restricted by policy and law to prevent prejudice to the defendant's right to a fair trial, protect witness safety, or avoid compromising the investigation.
Which Democrats asked him about the Epstein Files, and what did they ask?

Maxwell was convicted in 2021 and sentenced in 2022.

Her appeal was based on a non-prosecution agreement, nothing that had anything to do with the Epstein files.

Which Democrat was angriest at Garland for not prosecuting all the pedophiles named in the Epstein Files?
 
Actually it's not on the same planet.
Someone armed with a gun can continue using it as they escape.

And someone in a car can turn around and try to ram someone that they already tried once to run over and hit.

Dumbfuck.
 
Really?

I say again, you're a ******* idiot.
How many criminals after escaping being shot at. Turn around and give the shooter a second opportunity to shoot them?

That's why the odds are about 1 in six billion.
There is one person on earth that stupid.
 
A woman crazy enough to run into a cop is a danger to everyone on the road.
 
15th post
Which Democrats asked him about the Epstein Files, and what did they ask?

Maxwell was convicted in 2021 and sentenced in 2022.

Her appeal was based on a non-prosecution agreement, nothing that had anything to do with the Epstein files.

Which Democrat was angriest at Garland for not prosecuting all the pedophiles named in the Epstein Files?
She was charged as a co-conspirator with Jeffrey Epstein. Their cases were effectively merged by their association.

The charges she was indicted for, and subsequently convicted of, include:

Sex Trafficking of a Minor: Convicted of recruiting and grooming underage girls for sexual acts with Epstein.

Conspiracy to Sexually Abuse Minors: Convicted of three separate counts of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking and transportation of minors for illegal sexual activity.

You can't have a conspiracy of one.
Conspiracy requires that you can prove another person conspired.
And that person was Jeffrey Epstein.
 
She was charged as a co-conspirator with Jeffrey Epstein. Their cases were effectively merged by their association.

The charges she was indicted for, and subsequently convicted of, include:

Sex Trafficking of a Minor: Convicted of recruiting and grooming underage girls for sexual acts with Epstein.

Conspiracy to Sexually Abuse Minors: Convicted of three separate counts of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking and transportation of minors for illegal sexual activity.

You can't have a conspiracy of one.
Conspiracy requires that you can prove another person conspired.
And that person was Jeffrey Epstein.
person was Jeffrey Epstein.

And possibly more.
 
Back
Top Bottom