NRA Makes Rare Statement Against Trump Admin Over Alex Pretti Shooting - Newsweek
Category: News & Politics
Via: krishna • 10 months ago • 204 commentsBy: Jordan King and Daniel Orton Share (Newsweek)
Related:
1. NEW! Bruce Springsteen - Official Audio: Streets Of Minneapolis - (Hat tip: Bob Nelson)
2 Even Marjorie Taylor "No Soup For You" Greene has spoken out-- accusing federal agents of acting like Gazpacho:
3. Alex Pretti ‘Wasn’t Looking for Trouble,’ Says Colleague Who Hired Him
Dr. Aasma Shaukat, a physician and clinical researcher who first hired Pretti as a research assistant in 2014, described him as “the kindest, sweetest human” and said she was devastated by his death.
“He wasn’t looking for trouble. He wasn’t instigating anything. It’s disturbing how he’s being portrayed," Shaukat told Newsweek in a phone interview on Sunday.
Pretti, a U.S. citizen, was killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent on January 24 during an enforcement operation in Minneapolis.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Jordan King and Daniel OrtonShareNewsweek is a Trust Project member
The National Rifle Association (NRA) criticized comments by a senior federal prosecutor warning that approaching law enforcement with a gun could justify a fatal police response, saying such statements risk "demonizing law‑abiding citizens" as the nation reels from the killing of a man in Minneapolis by a U.S. border agent.
The NRA was responding to remarks by Bill Essayli, the first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, who said that "if you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you," adding, "Don't do it." In a statement, the gun‑rights group called that view "dangerous and wrong," urging public officials to refrain from broad generalizations and to wait for the outcome of a full investigation into Alex Pretti's death.
Newsweek has contacted Essayli and the NRA, via email outside of normal working hours, for comment.
Why It Matters
The comments highlight tensions between prominent gun-rights advocates and federal officials over when armed presence in public meets legal thresholds for deadly force.
It comes after 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti was shot and killed by federal immigration officers on Saturday in Minneapolis.
This is the second fatal shooting involving federal officers in the city within weeks—37-year-old Renee Nicole Good was killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer Jonathan Ross on January 7. There have been widespread daily protests in the Twin Cities since.
What To Know
Essayli had shared a post from the DHS about Saturday's shooting with the caption: "If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you. Don't do it!"
The NRA responded: "This sentiment from the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California is dangerous and wrong. Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens."
Similarly, Gun Owners of America, a gun rights advocacy and lobbying organization, replied to Essayli's post saying it "condemn[s) the untoward comments."
"The Second Amendment protects Americans' right to bear arms while protesting—a right the federal government must not infringe upon," the organization added.
Essayli hit back, saying the group was "adding words to mischaracterize [his] statement."
"I never said it's legally justified to shoot law-abiding concealed carriers. My comment addressed agitators approaching law enforcement with a gun and refusing to disarm," he said.
"My advice stands: If you value your life, do not aggressively approach law enforcement while armed," Essayli added. "If they reasonably perceive a threat and you fail to immediately disarm, they are legally permitted to use deadly force."
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that, on Saturday, federal officers were conducting an operation as part of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown and fired "defensive shots" after a man with a handgun approached them and "violently resisted" when officers tried to disarm him. The officer who shot Pretti is an eight-year Border Patrol veteran, federal officials said.
In a bystander video obtained by the AP, protesters can be heard blowing whistles and shouting profanities at agents on Nicollet Avenue. The video shows an officer shoving a person wearing a brown jacket, who reaches out for a man and the two embrace. The officer shoves the man in his chest and the two fall back.
The video then shows three officers surrounding the man, soon growing to at least seven officers. One officer appears on the man's back while another strikes him in the chest. As officers try to bring the man's arms behind his back, he appears to resist. An officer with a canister strikes the man near his head several times.
A shot rings out, though it's not clear where it came from. Multiple officers back off after the shot, more shots are heard, and the man lies motionless on the street.
What People Are Saying
President Donald Trump on Truth Social : "This is the gunman's gun, loaded (with two additional full magazines!), and ready to go—What is that all about? Where are the local Police? Why weren't they allowed to protect ICE Officers? The Mayor and the Governor called them off? It is stated that many of these Police were not allowed to do their job, that ICE had to protect themselves—Not an easy thing to do!
Why does Ilhan Omar have $34 Million Dollars in her account? And where are the Tens of Billions of Dollars that have been stolen from the once Great State of Minnesota? We are there because of massive Monetary Fraud, with Billions of Dollars missing, and Illegal Criminals that were allowed to infiltrate the State through the Democrats' Open Border Policy. We want the money back, and we want it back, NOW."
Adding: "Those Fraudsters who stole the money are going to jail, where they belong! This is no different from a really big Bank Robbery. Much of what you're witnessing is a COVER UP for this Theft and Fraud. The Mayor and the Governor are inciting Insurrection, with their pompous, dangerous, and arrogant rhetoric! Instead, these sanctimonious political fools should be looking for the Billions of Dollars that has been stolen from the people of Minnesota, and the United States of America. LET OUR ICE PATRIOTS DO THEIR JOB! 12,000 Illegal Alien Criminals, many of them violent, have been arrested and taken out of Minnesota. If they were still there, you would see something far worse than you are witnessing today!
Gun Owners of America said: "We are saddened by the loss of life in Minneapolis, Minnesota earlier today during a federal law-enforcement operation. Because details remain limited and facts are still emerging, it is essential that the Justice Department conduct a complete, transparent, and prompt investigation so the public can fully understand what occurred and maintain confidence in the rule of law.
"Furthermore, we condemn the untoward comments of Bill Essayli. Federal agents are not 'highly likely' to be 'legally justified' in 'shooting' concealed carry licensees who approach while lawfully carrying a firearm. The Second Amendment protects Americans' right to bear arms while protesting—a right the federal government must not infringe upon.
"Finally, the Left must stop antagonizing ICE and Border Patrol agents who are taking criminals off the streets and play a crucial role in protecting communities and upholding the rule of law."
Essayli responded: "You're adding words to mischaracterize my statement. I never said it's legally justified to shoot law-abiding concealed carriers. My comment addressed agitators approaching law enforcement with a gun and refusing to disarm.
"I come from a community where multiple LEOs have been killed by firearms in the line of duty. They put their lives on the line every day to keep our communities safe. The left is playing a very dangerous game by encouraging armed confrontations with police.
"My advice stands: If you value your life, do not aggressively approach law enforcement while armed. If they reasonably perceive a threat and you fail to immediately disarm, they are legally permitted to use deadly force."
What Happens Next
Protests and public scrutiny of federal immigration enforcement in Minneapolis have continued in the wake of two fatal shootings.
Minnesota officials have said the state will take the lead in investigating the shooting, though jurisdictional disputes with federal authorities remain unresolved.
...Request Reprint & LicensingSubmit CorrectionView Editorial & AI Guidelines
NewsWho Is the Federal Agent Who Shot Alex Pretti in Minneapolis? What We Know3 min read
NewsFederal Judge Grants Restraining Order in Alex Pretti Case1 min readNewsWho Was Alex Jeffrey Pretti? Man Killed By Federal Agents in Minneapolis2 min read
Pam Bondi Offers to Pull ICE Out of Minneapolis if Voter Files Handed Over
Trending
Breaking NewsWho Was Alex Jeffrey Pretti? Man Killed By Federal Agents in Minneapolis
Donald Trump Reacts to Fatal Minneapolis Shooting
1. Break the rules and your comment may be deleted without warning!
2. The "Whatever Principal" may be applied in the most egregious cases!!!
Tags
Who is online
78 visitors
The NRA rebuked a senior federal prosecutor's remarks on armed encounters with police after the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.
Although until now did not accept that there was a reason for the Second Amendment to exist in modern society, since there IS a Second Amendment, it gave Pretti a right that ICE denied. Actually, I now see the need in America for that Amendment to exist.
Busses of the Orient:
You are getting "BRIGHTER & BRIGHTER" every time you post to EAT THE PRESS-DO NOT READ IT!
I am starved for your kind input.
Since where I am most of the busses are going electric and are therefore much quieter I will make more effort to provide you with FOOD (for thought).
Then what you may need is a piping hot bowl of Gazpacho!
And they're painting the passports brown
The beauty parlor Is filled with sailors
The circus is in town
Here comes The blind commissioner
They've got him in a trance . . .
My comment made you go
To Desolation Row?
I just looked at my comment again and wondered it I was right in pluralizing bus to be busses, so I checked Merriam-Webster:
So I was right, because busses may be rare but it isn't wrong.
I don't mind spelling errors in tricky cases. Errare human est...
I do mind spelling errors in easy cases. I think they show a lack of respect for the reader. How hard is it really to get the "there their they're" series straight? How hard is it to remember that an apostrophe is never, ever used to make a plural?
"Its it's" is one I always have to reread because I get it wrong so often. I know what the two uses are, but I type without thinking. If I don't reread, I'm insulting my reader.
Because my vision is waning and I need new glasses I do make typos and fail to reread what I've written. However, I do try to be careful with my spelling and grammar, as I am with how I word my replies so I can stay ticket-free. I once did a quiz on NT about the uses of "there their they're" and "its it's" and most members were okay on it (but not all).
I regularly find articles.that have spelling errors... even in the title! Misused apostrophes abound. It often feels.like no one, not even the author, has proofread.
It is time for "Dirty Diaper Donnie" to get his DIAPER changed, so he can go into the COURT, [removed]
[✘] All who agreed shout "HELL YES"! [REmoved]
The [✘] Above and Below, according to the numerous hallucinations that I bought at a Kid's Store, forced me to write the following:
TRUMP MUST GO!
ICE MUST GO!
PAM BONDI MUST GO!
PATEL MUST GO!
NOEM MUST GO!
J.D. VANCE MUST GET A BRAIN, then GO!
HOGMAN MUST BE SENT TO A RESTRICTED BARN for Traitors.
all accounts will be settled with republicans at the end of trump's term ...
If you mean Homan, you do realize that Obama awarded him the Presidential Rank Award for Distinguished Service in 2015 for doing even more in terms of ICE enforcement and removal operations than what he has done so far under Trump? Google AI summarizes:
So why is he a Traitor now?
As far as the rest of the people you mentioned, you might be able to make a better case for your opinion, and I might agree with most of it, but perhaps for somewhat different reasons.
... the guy that the FBI has on video accepting a $50K bribe in 2024, a case which the trump DOJ promptly dropped and buried.
The NRA was responding to remarks by Bill Essayli, the first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, who said that "if you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you," adding, "Don't do it."
In a statement, the gun‑rights group called that view "dangerous and wrong," urging public officials to refrain from broad generalizations and to wait for the outcome of a full investigation into Alex Pretti's death.
.
Of course the NRA makes that statement because it is in keeping with their belief that citizens should be allowed to carry guns in public. People are not allowed to drink a bottle of beer out in public but they can carry a gun out in public. Incredible.
You can carry an unopened bottle of beer in public
Where are we as a country when the NRA is the most sensible voice?
In PERGATORY, I reckon!
yet everyone associated with the NRA today would fight to be first in line to kiss trump's ass ...
That's like asking the BANK ROBBER to hold his gun until everyone in the Bank lies down on the bank floor for a nap!
Why It Matters
The comments highlight tensions between prominent gun-rights advocates and federal officials over when armed presence in public meets legal thresholds for deadly force.
It comes after 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti was shot and killed by federal immigration officers on Saturday in Minneapolis.
This is the second fatal shooting involving federal officers in the city within weeks—37-year-old Renee Nicole Good was killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer Jonathan Ross on January 7. There have been widespread daily protests in the Twin Cities since.
Wecome to the rebirth of The Wild West. Time for the theatres to show more cowboy movies.
Yes, ICE has pissed off the wrong people now.
I think open carry is generally not a bright idea, just because it can freak people out. I think concealed carry is just more prudent.
Having said that, we are supposed to be a society that says it’s ok to be armed in public. So, there is no justification for harassing, detaining, arresting, or shooting a man just because he happens to have a weapon. If you want that to change, you need to change our Constitution.
Which is pretty much impossible re: any changes on any gun issues.
It sure as hell is impossible with:
1. The present PotUS
2. The present political majority of the House and the Senate.
3. The present majority in the SCotUS.
4. The present number of Americans who want and have guns.
If that was the case, I would agree with you 100%. You need to ask yourself WHY are people getting physically involved with Police doing their job, armed or unarmed when you interfere with Officers the chances of something bad happen to you are increased 10-fold!
Amazing how that simple fact seems to be lost on so many. I remember thinking I was invincible and thinking nothing bad could happen to me. I grew out of it.
I do not need to ask that because Alex Pretti wasn’t doing that. He had been visually recording ICE agents (who, by the way, are not Police) from a distance. When they pepper sprayed a woman, Pretti - who was a nurse - went to help her as she was on the ground. On one video, he can be heard asking the woman, “are you ok?”
He was not trying to do anything to agents. He happened to have a gun on his belt. He was not holding it.
While he was doing this, agents pepper sprayed Pretti from behind, and then forced him to the ground, where they disarmed him, and then shot him to death.
It’s not “lost” on anyone. It’s just not relevant to this situation because Alex Pretti wasn’t interfering with anyone.
You know you just contradicted yourself, when he went to "help her" that is getting involved!
You maybe need to watch some of the video . An agent approached a woman who was not interfering and shoved her to the ground. Alex Pretti sought to help that woman and was attacked for it by the agents.
There is nothing about this that could be reasonably defined as “agents doing their job.” Their job - according to statute - is to enforce immigration law. Period. It’s not to assault people who are monitoring their activities. Such monitoring is protected under the First Amendment.
Astounding. Helping an innocent victim is now justifies being murdered.
Astounding.
When you are blowing a whistle directly in the ear of an officer, you don't feel that is interfering?
If people would be "monitoring" there would be no problem, no one would have died. They have elected to get involved with officers while they are doing their jobs. Just a quick question do you stop and get involved when someone gets pulled over for a DWI, or a shop lifter, maybe a domestic assault how many times have you gotten out to blow a whistle in an officer's ear or help someone involved with the police?
Sorry, but I’m tired of people twisting themselves in knots to defend brutality and murder. Being pulled over is not the same as being thrown to the ground and pepper sprayed.
You are not going to convince me that that woman was any kind of threat or undeserving of compassionate medical attention.
Nor are you going to convince me that Alex Pretti deserved to be shot 10 times for attempting to deliver that attention.
I am not trying to convince you of anything; I am telling what happened based on the video that you wanted me to watch. The women was harassing the officer by blowing a whistle in his ear, she was pushed to the ground and probably going to be arrested (I am assuming that) Pretti elected to get involved, he was armed, a scuffle broke out, someone or thing fired a shot, the officers thought it was Pretti and returned fire.
This use of the passive voice avoids assigning responsibility to those who acted. It is a disingenuous evasion.
A scuffle didn’t “break out” like some force of nature. Once that woman hit the ground, there was no need for the agent to keep attacking her. He needlessly attacked Pretti from behind, when he was only trying to help her. You know he was a nurse, right?
You say some “thing” fired a shot. Like a gun fired itself?? Again, the twisting to excuse murder!
If so, they are incompetent. The man was on all fours, and had just been deprived of his weapon. Even if he were armed, firing in a circle at point blank range is insane. Just tackle him. Those agents are lucky they didn’t shoot each other.
What decibel was that whistle that justified assaulting her? And in your mind assisting a person who'd been assaulted, with their back to ICE, constitutes a capital offense?
Well said. From the reports I've been reading that was my understanding as well, which SHOULD be DAMNING for ICE and a good reason to IMPEACH the lying Kristi Noem. I think that even Trump knows it, which is why he is backing off of it.
First time I ever heard of a whistle to be a dangerous weapon. Usually it is used to stop the play, in other words, to call for a stop in what ICE was doing. And if it IS considered dangerous, why are children allowed to have them?
The use of noise to distract, irritate and cause a loss of concentration has probably been known since the dawn of humanity.
There's a reason people don't blow shrill whistles in surgeon's ears at random intervals during surgeries.
Maybe it distracts, but it sure as hell doesn't endanger life. If noise distracts ICE maybe they should wear earplugs. Why is it not considered peaceful protest?
Sure it does. That's the whole point. Trying to work on the nervous system to increase agitation and provoke mistakes. Progressives are running their ally Hamas' playbook. Creating victims is winning. The whole point is to get ICE to react and hopefully kill someone they use as a martyr.
Why is it not considered peaceful protest?
It's legal. Doesn't mean there isn't intent behind it. These protests aren't being run by amateurs. The same people coordinating these protests were chasing Jews into hiding on campuses last year and storming the white house a few years before that.
But if they did, that wouldn't justify shooting someone.
The point of the protests are to get ICE to leave, or at least behave wih a sense of decency. In no way is it to provoke murder. Don't blame protestors because some Proud Boy committed murder.
He had no weapon.
Since when is blowing a whistle illegal?
Rectionaries are running to their role model the Gestapo's playbook.
Lol. It's absolutely to provoke a violent response. Do you not know that?
because some Proud Boy committed murder.
I didn't see that. Where is your evidence for that statement?
Ah. the Hamas cheerleaders are upset they've been found out.
I carry a whistle now as part of my emergency gear when hunting , i started carrying one when a member of Search and Rescue during woods and white water operations where voices got drowned out .
the one i carry is a Acme tornado 2000, a pea less whistle , The decibel level is well within the range of causing temporary and permanent hearing damage even from a short breathed blast .
so blowing this whistle next to someone's ear , or any whistle for that matter can be seen as an assault meant to cause harm and disability.
Key Features
Ah, the Gestapo loving neo-Fascist propagandists are upset that no one believes a fucking word they say.
I don't expect Hamas's fellow travelers to agree with me, nor want them to.
I don't expect Gestapo loving neo-Fascists to come up with anything other than nonsensical, incoherent drivel.
Where is your evidence for that statement?
Yeah, they are. They're just American citizens exercising their right to protest these violent and unnecessary tactics. They are not being paid by Soros, they're not being controlled or led by any fantasy deep state. People who believe that kind of conservative conspiracy theory shit seriously need a lobotomy because they're obviously fucked in the head.
Wrong again. Just because some liberal college students protested the indiscriminate bombing of children doesn't make them antisemites or Hamas lovers and none of those protests had anything to do with the protests we're seeing now. Rightwing religious conservatives just love lying their fucking faces off because they think they can get away with it and the rest of their fellows are too fucking stupid to realize they're being lied to.
Even if there were a few fringe anti-Semites and idiotic Hamas supporters at any of the college protests, that's nothing compared to the level of anti-Semitism and the number of murderers of Jews prevalent among the right wingers.
But typical . . . of certain types of people . . .
Yes, Pretti was shot by ICE only after they had removed his weapon and was no longer a threat!!!
That was when they got the courage to shoot him. Civilians with guns scare them too much.
Just like the rise of any fascists, 'civilians with guns' is great as long as they're the civilian. But if those the fascists consider enemies get their hands on a weapon, then their ideological enemy is a 'domestic terrorist' worthy of immediate execution. These folk don't really give a fuck about the American dream of all people being created equal and having the same rights and being able to work your way to the top regardless of your skin color, gender or religion. Their American dream is "White conservative Christians First God damn it!".
I didn't see that happening in any video.
Is there any proof that this woman had that exact whistle?
neither did i , but it was reported thats what happened beforehand .
as for can it be proven this particular whistle was used ? irrelevant to me since my post was a observation based on personal experience and knowledge of little things like that .
Thankfully i am not LEO ,use to be , but not anymore , so i wouldnt be restricted in my reactions to having it done to me .
Like my reaction could be in such a situation as having a whistle blown in my ear ,
1 answer with an air horn blown right next to the offenders until their eardrum bursts and bleeds.
2 wait for them to go for the second burst breathing in and spray fart spray in their open mouth or nose . seems some people are getting immune to pepper spray .
the true moral here is , never underestimate the level of dumbassery some dumbass people will stoop to , especially in groups, no matter how large or small .
Perhaps the Gazpacho loving neo-Fascists need to start using a new cookbook?
9 times out of 10 I agree with you, but not this time. It's not illegal to blow a whistle.
thats OK, we just see things from 2 different perspectives .
at least people know not to do it to me , because i stated some possible reactions to them doing so .
personally i lean towards the fart spray , nothing like subliminally telling someone to eat shit, and live , and remember the taste .
I completely agree with you. I've never understood why people think it's a good idea to do so. That is, I understand their reason for doing it, I just don't understand why they think it's a good one. First, as you say, it freaks people out. Second, it is less tactical. I would not want potential baddies to identify me as the primary target.
This part, not so much, although I don't totally disagree. Context matters in these situations. While I agree law enforcement shouldn't go around shooting people just because they are armed, rightly or wrongly, Good had already been shot the week prior and this after weeks of violent or illegal confrontation with "protestors." That ratcheted tensions significantly. Every ICE or other federal agent, and probably even the city police force, are wondering when someone is going to start shooting at them. After all, it's already happened. So, showing up with a gun is 100 times worse than citizens open carrying in everyday life. Just being there indicates hostility toward the officers. Being there with a gun makes it 100 times worse.
Please try to understand what I'm saying here. I'm not talking about specifics. The details of what happened to Pretty or how it went down is irrelevant. It has to do with the question of "How smart is it for me to go down to a tense and hostile situation armed with a gun, no matter what my intentions are?" If one's answer is, "I don't care! I have the right!", then that person bears a large part of the responsibility for whatever happens to them. That doesn't mean that whatever happens to them was justified. It means that just because you have the right is not protection from something bad happening to you in spite of whatever your rights are. People who go to these protests are putting themselves at risk. People who go there armed are increasing that risk by orders of magnitude.
She came up behind him, close enough that he could push her away!
This woman, and Pretti elected to interject themselves into this situation, do you get involved with Police Officers when they are in the middle of an arrest?
You have no idea what their job was at the time of this incident.
[deleted][✘]
Yeah whatever, keep the brilliant comments coming.
Approaching an officer of the law while carrying a weapon is not a crime. However, context matters. I would never intentionally go to one of these protests. I can't think of a condition where I would. You can multiply that by infinity, thinking of doing so while armed. That is just plain stupid, multiplied by infinity.
Then your life is blessed. Perhaps one day, you or someone you care about will be suffering because of government cruelty or injustice, and then you will have a reason to add your voice to the chorus.
Hopefully, that won't be necessary. But, if it ever is, I will do so in accordance with and through the law.
I think bringing a gun to an ICE situation is a bad idea. Its hard to imagine the situation where that would be helpful. There are multiple heavily armed agents at every one of these incidents.
I suspect he brought the holster and gun because he brought it everywhere. I dont really understand that train of thought, but people have it.
Agreed.
I was wondering if that was the case, too. Even so, he should have known bringing it there was a bad idea.
I’m not anti-gun. I own several. But I don’t walk around town with one, for several reasons.
Now, that’s my choice, but MAGA - or its equivalent - has always insisted that people should be able to walk around town with a gun and never be treated like a special threat. Hundreds of them showed up at the Capitol on January 6 with guns. They made a hero of Kyle Rittenhouse who walked into protests with a very visible rifle and ended up killing two people and wounding a third.
Today, however, they are all saying that it was obviously insane to show up to this event with a gun, and that basically Alex Pretti (whose weapon was holstered) brought his death upon himself. Or if they are not, certainly DHS, DOJ, FBI, and some in the White House are saying it, and MAGA (with few exceptions) is letting them say it. Their silence is complicity.
Even so, the fact is that even if it was a gun he purchased illegally and wasn't permitted to carry it, would that justify his summary execution after his gun which wasn't even in his hands was removed? Would that have justified nearly a dozen bullets, many into his back? A man lying defenseless on the ground with his hands out, nothing in them, even if we KNEW he'd committed some crime, would that warrant what we saw those clearly out-of-control ICE agents do?
It was a bad idea for Kyle Rittenhouse to bring an AR-15 to a protest, yet he's become a sort of hero on the right after shooting three protestors and killing one. No police knocked him to the ground and emptied a clip into him. Weird.
I would not be surprised if one or two of those reasons matched my own.
Logically, they shouldn't. I'm sure you yourself have seen people open carrying. I know I have. I don't feel threatened by them. I only feel like they are making a bad choice. To me, it just feels like they are shoving a right into people's faces, not that they are some sort of threat.
I'm not aware of this. That is, I haven't ever seen any reporting on it. But even if it's true, I stand by what I said earlier. It's stupid to bring a gun to such a politically charged and dangerous situation. It's just asking for something bad to happen.
That's not accurate. He didn't walk into protests. The protests came to him. That said, I do not think it was a good idea for him to have shown up there to protect that place with a gun. It should have been, but because of the insanity infecting America, it was a bad idea. But to blame Rittenhouse for the deaths seems insane to me, given the facts. He didn't go after anyone. They went after him. That him being there armed was perhaps not the best idea, he had every legal right to be there under the law. That it was a bad idea did not give license to those who attacked him to do whatever they wished. That is, it is not the case that, because he had a gun we are therefore justified in doing whatever we wish.
I don't know about insane but I think it was definitely stupid and I think it contributed to his death. Unless he was a moron, he had to know the risk he was taking by having it in such a charged situation. Politics, morality, intent. None of that matters at all. That's because no one can control what others will do. What should be does not trump what can happen. I have the right and should be able to walk through any neighborhood in America, but you can be sure there are neighborhoods I would not walk through. Ideology will not protect you.
Get back to me when you understand what I am talking about.
Your point seemed to be 'it's a bad idea to bring a gun to an ICE protest' which I agree with. That does not however, justify what we all witnessed. Conservatives leapt to Rittenhouse's defense for actually 'brandishing' a weapon at a protest, but now it seems like we're getting a different story from them simply because this guy wasn't a conservative gunning down liberals. Every American should be outraged at what we saw, not downplaying it by saying "Well, that was a bad idea on his part". That is blaming the victim pure and simple. It's like saying the woman who got raped was asking for it because she wore a miniskirt to a bar. Was it maybe a bad idea to wear it? Maybe. But does that excuse the rapist? Of course not.
Unless they literally knocked on his door, they did not come to him. He didn’t even live in the same state.
Was he already at the dealership when the "protestors" arrived?
Again, he did not even live there. He drove out of state to play Vigilante. The protests in no way came to him.
Alex Pretti, by the way, actually lived in the place where he was murdered. If conflict came to any of these people, it came to to Pretti - and Renée Good - a hell of a lot more than it came to Rittenhouse, or anyone on January 6.
That is the entirety of my point. It is the sole point I'm making.
Correct. Simply having a gun on him doesn't give license for law enforcement to do whatever they wish.
Do you really believe that chemicalization is accurate or does it just serve your political views? I'm conservative, yet I think Pretti's shooting needs serious investigation. It seems pretty sketch to me. I absolutely want the shooter or shooters to be punished if this was unwarranted.
Outrage? No, I don't think that's the right response. I think the right response is to recognize we have an immigration problem. That much should be agreeable no matter what side one is on. Even if this turns out to be a wrongful shooting, I would not think it wise to be outraged. I think wisdom would say that when everything is so out of control, these things should be expected. That isn't indifference, it's recognition of reality.
Right now, both sides are using emotional manipulation in order to get their base to support their actions. They do not want people to resort to reason, they want them to react with outrage. In that state, they are just reacting. Want proof? Is there anything happening in Congress that is attempting to make a serious effort at compromise? No. Both sides are all or nothing. That's what should enrage us.
Except that you've already stated that bringing a gun to an ICE protest is a bad idea. Why is it a bad idea? That's rhetorical. It's obvious why it's a bad idea. Therefore, while it would be wrong to say that the guy got what he deserved, he is responsible for the decision to bring it and, therefore, contributed to his own demise. Doesn't matter whether or not it was fair, just or anything else.
Saying she deserved it is not the same as saying she bears some responsibility if it happens. And it doesn't matter what she's wearing. It has absolutely nothing to do with rights or what should be or anything like that. Rather, it's like knowing bears live in the woods and you are knowingly taking a risk by going into them. Predators go to bars. That is a fact. If you go to a bar, that's a risk you take in going to one. The more sexually appealing you make yourself, the more you make yourself a target. The should and should nots, the morality, the rights and all the rest doesn't change that. I don't go to bars but, from what I've gleaned from various sources, it is because of exactly this it is why women generally go to bars either with their man or in groups of other women.
Do you understand what I am saying? I'm not talking about what should be. I'm talking about what is. Fairness is irrelevant. What should be is irrelevant. It won't save a woman from getting raped. A woman has to deal with what is reality. And reality is that scumbags are out there. Meeting a guy at a bar is dangerous. If a woman chooses to do so, she bears the responsibility of that choice. That doesn't excuse the rape in any way. I'm talking about a woman knowing the risks and making choices accordingly.
Agreed. Wholeheartedly. Personally, I think rape should be treated the same as the murder of children. There is no justification of rape. Not even within a marriage.
He was already at the dealership before the protesters arrived.
He lives at the dealership?
Why was he there?
Or perhaps since he had a permit he carried gun everytime he went out--a habit just like leave his house with keys, phone, wallet, etc.
???
First, let's be crystal clear. He was not carrying a weapon in the sense that he had his gun unholstered and in his hand. It was on his body, holstered. The phrasing and clarity in the use of language matters.
Second, he was not approaching an officer, he was helping a fellow citizen up after she was shoved by an officer. Again, your phrasing makes it seem as though Pretti had weapon in hand and was moving towards an officer. The implication is obvious.
So the reality is that Pretti was holding his cell phone taking video of the officers. He had the legal right to carry a firearm and was. Likely something he routinely did.
In hindsight, given what we have seen, I suspect Pretti would have left his gun at home.
Regardless, you are focused here on blaming the victim no matter how much you protest. In no way did Pretti do anything that justified his being killed. That, Drakk, is the important point here.
Great! Let's! Get back to me when you understand what I am talking about.
A slimy tactic. I directly dealt with what you are talking about.
Deal with the response. Honestly. Without playing obvious deflection games.
You insist:
Stupid or not, there was no justification to harm Alex Pretti, much less fire 10 rounds into his body and kill him.
So, after acknowledging your position:
You still do not understand what I'm talking about. Either that or you are deliberately trying to shift the conversation to your preference.
Seems like nobody understands you then. So instead of pouting, offer a clue on what you think we fail to understand.
Did you mean this? If so, I acknowledged that.
Consequences.
So the only point you wish to make is that bringing a gun to a protest enables additional bad consequences.
All those words just to state the obvious?
"There is none so blind as he who will not see." The meaning of what I have said, here and elsewhere, is plain enough for any rational person to understand.
And in Good's case, bringing a car to a road.
When a human being is killed by an abuse of lethal force, such as with Alex Pretti (shot 10 times), an argument that he should not have worn his holstered legal gun will be interpreted by any rational person as blaming the victim.
We see this all the time by the same type of people. Mostly, it's 'she was asking for it dressed like that...' but you know, victim blaming helps them escape their own accountability.
The odd thing is clearly blaming the victim and then trying to deny that this is being done.
Pretti should not have been wearing his legal gun is a sensible point ... especially in hindsight ... but it is entirely irrelevant since the man never unholstered his weapon and is dead. What is the point of focusing on this aspect?
The key point in this tragic event is the abuse of lethal force by the government.
Cognitive bias. Bad things only happen to bad people. Thus Pretti's death has to be his fault.
When a woman is raped, should we also be overly concerned with what she was wearing? How late she was out? If she was friendly?
Lets have a semi rational person give it a shot.
Having a gun (weather or not a conscious decision to bring it) increases the possibility of bad things happening. That is just a fact. Hypothetically speaking lets say a person going to a volatile protest has a 2% chance of getting caught up in something bad. A person carrying may have a 3% chance in being involved in something bad happening, 4% if involved in a scuffle. No judgement, no blaming just a statement of fact (not the percentages).
It in no way justifies the actions of those that may be involved in the bad actions against the person.
With the current information regarding the Pretti case it looks like he may have been disarmed when he was shot. There is no excuse for shooting him, no justification, and the folks that shot him should be held accountable to the full extent of the law.
In short while carrying a gun may have increased the probability of bad things happening it in no way justifies what may happen. It is not victim shaming, it is just speaking factually.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, especially for the person it seems shot Prettis weapon but was not one of the people that actually shot him.
How did I do.
No, but I am pretty sure it will matter to the defense.
Nobody has suggested that this obvious point is wrong.
So that academic musing is not wrong. It is, however, misguided and gives the impression of blaming the victim.
We are talking (the context now) about the killing of Alex Pretti. He was shot 10 times by government agents. One can muse about all the things that he could have done differently, but that ignores the much greater aspect of reality: there was no reason for this man to be shot, much less killed with 10 shots.
Given both the tragedy (in terms of the unnecessary loss of life) and the societal problem of having a government that would engage in such an egregious abuse of lethal force, focusing on the relatively minor things this now dead man could have done instead of what the government did wrong is both curious and ignores the seriousness of this matter.
See, people will make mistakes like having a gun at a protest where a loose-cannon could over-react and shoot you. Instead of analyzing what Perriti could have done better, we should focus on the systemic problem at hand: an out-of-control federal government.
Hopefully the jury will be rational.
Even if a woman is running around naked, she should not be raped. The rape, no matter the circumstances, is a crime and there is no excuse for it.
The odd thing is clearly recognizing that Pretty should not have been wearing the gun but somehow denying he holds any responsibility for doing so when something predictably bad happens to him.
Irrelevant? This is insane. Do you honestly believe that he was armed was not a factor in his death?
Accountability for one's own actions. He chose to be there. He chose to go armed. He chose to interact with ICE. No one forced him to do those things. He chose to do them and therefore is responsible for taking those risks and bears some of the responsibility for what happened to him. This is not a moral or legal fact. It is simply a risk analysis scenario. It's dangerous to horse around on a mountain. It's exponentially dangerous to horse around near a cliff on that mountain. It is dangerous to go to one of these "protests". It is exponentially dangerous to go armed. The person who does so bears the responsibility for doing so.
Recognizing this as true does nothing to make the ICE officers involved in his death any more or less guilty than they may be. They also made a series of choices in the same way Pretty did and are equally responsible for those choices.
No. It's not the key point. It is only one of several. Another key point, the one I'm trying to get you to understand, is that righteous indignation and a sense that such will shield you from consequences is delusional. Good lost her life because she ignored this fact. You can write book after book about how unjust what happened to her was, yet she's still dead. It wouldn't save her. Pretty made one bad decision after another, the last being fighting arrest and now he's dead. Doesn't matter how guilty or wrong the ICE agents may have been. Their guilt does not bring him back to life.
So, one of the key points in this tragic event is that if one goes down there to "protest", they need to understand that they are making the choice to put themselves in a dangerous situation and certainly bear some responsibility for what may happen to them.
Another key point is that the leadership in places where things like this are happening should be explaining all this to the people. That confrontations with federal authority should rightly happen in the courts and Congress, not in the streets or putting oneself in harm's way.
You get it.
No, we are not. That's you trying to change the subject again.
"Should" has nothing to do with it. Why don't you understand that?
Stop complaining.
You made a point. I (we) commented on it.
I (we) made additional points about how this blames the victim.
What is with this ridiculous claim of yours that people do not understand basic facts.
Should most definitely matters. It is against the law and morally wrong to rape someone. Even if that person is running around naked, rape should not take place.
You seem to be driven to object to anything we write.
That the victim doesn't hold blame is an ideological view, not a view based on reality. Not understanding this will get more people killed.
And how many rapes has "should" stopped? Can a woman pull out her "should" card and stop one?
You keep repeating this yet I have acknowledged it.
Nobody has claimed that he has no responsibility in this. Pay attention to what is written instead of pretending that everyone does not understand what you wrote unless they 100% agree with you and have no objection to you blaming the victim in the process.
It is irrelevant in this circumstance. His gun was holstered. He did nothing wrong legally. Nothing he did warrants him being shot 10 times.
You can argue that he enabled lunatics with guns to use his holstered weapon as an excuse to kill him. But it is 'insane' to try to argue that he is responsible for his death. You are trying to blame the victim.
So yes given that we have seen how out of control these government agents can be, it was a mistake for Pretti to have his holstered weapon. In hindsight, if he were alive, I suspect he would have chosen to leave it at home.
Sure he chose to be there and he chose to wear his gun. But he did nothing to warrant being killed.
If you were to go to a protest carrying no weapons and just holding an offensive sign and shouting at the officers, and some officer killed you, do you believe that your actions warranted your death? Sure, you would have not been killed if you stayed home. So you logically are suggesting that anyone who uses their legal rights to protest are going to be partly responsible for their own deaths.
Given we are talking about a real circumstance where a fellow citizen was gunned down by the government —an outrageous abuse of lethal force— you should expect that your argument ... which focuses on what Pretti could have done to avoid this ... are blaming the victim.
Pretti is not the problem, Drakk. He behaved like many others would behave and legally did nothing wrong.
The problem is an out-of-control government ... an out-of-control, corrupt administration.
This is irrational. You clearly know your argument is flawed so now you are playing games.
The point is that rape is illegal and immoral and should NEVER take place. And by 'rape' I am talking about an actual rape, not just an accusation of the same.
Similarly, killing a man who poses no threat is illegal and immoral and should NEVER take place.
You would hope so but as someone who has been on 3 or 4 juries it is not only the case. I was actually on a jury where a few people were happy to vote with either verdict that would get them home the quickest.
It is not meant that way and many people would not take it that way. It is looking at the totality of the situation that led up to someone getting killed. If someone looking at the total situation and decides not to wear his legal gun to a protest (not because he is concerned about being blamed but concerned about being dead) that is their decision. Having all the information about possible consequences of actions is always good IMO.
It is all about probability. There are several places around me I would walk during the day but not at night. Although it is never right to get mugged(or worse) knowing that would have an effect on when I would go. In this case I might be 30% more likely to be mugged and in the Pretti case it may have only increased the probability only slightly but I would rather have that information than not have that information.
This is a small point in an otherwise shitty situation that needs to be investigated to help not have it happen again as well as holding those guilty accountable but I don't think it is something to be ignored.
Maybe because your comments are both ignorant and attempting to change the subject. Take this little gem for instance...
Relatively minor? You simply cannot comprehend what I'm saying, can you. Pretty cannot control what the government does. He cannot control what the ICE agents do. The entirety of my point is that Pretty can control what he did. That is not relatively minor. He was half the equation. He had agency. He brought a gun. That isn't a legal or moral observation. It is a fact. It is also a fact that, regardless of legal or moral considerations, that increased his personal risk tremendously. Then, when he fought back when ICE tried to take him into custody, he increased the risk further. Again, not a moral or legal observation. It is pure risk assessment. Pretty made a series of poor choices. Now he's dead. He bears the responsibility of those choices he made that led to it as no one forced him to make them. The ICE agents have the same thing. They bear the responsibility for their choices. If this was an unjust shooting, it's all on them. And if their being poorly trained is a factor, those that sent them unprepared also bear responsibility.
This is truth. Anything that argues against it is just ideology. If people understand this, they maybe less people will get killed. "Should" will not save them. If they understand this, maybe they will make better choices.
Okay, TiG. You go with that. Hope "should" works out for you.
Carrying a loaded weapon with two extra magazines and stepping into a situation he was not a part of and then pulling his weapon - kinda moved the bullseye to his chest and also really kinda stupid
So, one of the key points in this tragic event is that if one goes down there to "protest", they need to understand that they are making the choice to put themselves in a dangerous situation and certainly bear some responsibility for what may happen to them.
Another key point is that the leadership in places where things like this are happening should be explaining all this to the people. That confrontations with federal authority should rightly happen in the courts and Congress, not in the streets or putting oneself in harm's way.
Perfectly said.
Yes the jury system is imperfect.
While definitely true this is also too focused in terms of corrective actions IMO.
The interplay between ICE and local police should be looked at to improve protests from coming off the rails. That is a systemic issue
It seems the feds and Minnesota politicians are now looking into the transfer of violent criminals . If that means there are less non violent illegals being caught up in the nets that will also help IMO.
I am sure other things that can be looked at to help diffuse the situation other than the out of control feds. Even in that realm looking at the feds involved should be looked into. How long have they been ICE agents, training, training programs should also be looked at instead of a blanket feds are out of control being the only systematic issue that needs to be addressed.
Does not matter. Alex Pretti was brutally gunned down by the government and no matter what mistakes he made, there is no excuse for it.
So when one focuses on mistakes of the victim in such a situation, they should expect to be called out for blaming the victim.
Even if that is not what they meant to do.
"Out-of-control federal government"?? Enforcement of the Constitutional laws - enforcement of self-defense criteria - what are your issues with "following the law"?
More dishonest crap from you.
Relatively minor?
Yes. In a situation where a law-abiding fellow citizen is gunned down by the government firing 10 rounds into his body, the fact that he had his legal, holstered gun is relatively minor. Unless you are trying to blame the victim.
Yes, so if you get shot at a protest, it is your fault, right? You cannot control your killers, but you could have stayed home. Blaming the victim.
I know that. And my rebuttal is that human beings will routinely make mistakes, errors in judgment. Pretti should have not had his gun holstered on his body. But that is in no way a justification to kill him. But you keep focusing on the victim. Why is that?
Of course, just like you would be responsible for being at a protest, holding a sign, and then getting shot by an out-of-control lunatic. If you had stayed home you would still be alive. Boy, did you fuck up!
Yes, Drakk, and of the two Pretti's mistakes are minor compared to what the government agent did. Reminder: they shot a disarmed, defenseless, fellow citizen 10 times.
You do not see that the shooting of Good and Pretti are examples of government agents who are out-of-control? Of an initiative that brings poorly vetted, poorly trained individuals en-masses and publicly into communities is creating havoc, raising emotions, and unnecessarily putting people at risk?
Again, another comment from you that illustrates you know your argument is flawed.
Should a woman ever, under any circumstance, be raped? Take your time and figure that out.
You might want to first learn what actually happened before opining.
Intent does matter, it matters alot
Then the only thing I would suggest is they ignore those criticisms. There is a difference between focusing on and including it in the whole situation that led to someone getting killed.
Okay. Let's play with that. I'm at a protest. I'm carrying a sign. I'm not in the street or even the sidewalk. I'm on the edge of a park. Meanwhile, other protesters are in the streets, throwing things at law enforcement. Suddenly, one of the protestors pulls a gun and starts shooting at the cops. The cops return fire. I get hit by a stray round from a cop. I'm not going to blame the cop. That would be because I understand the inherent risk of remaining there while other protestors are being violent. I know that a shooting is within the bounds of possibility. I could have left when some of the protesters turned violent, but I chose to stay. What happens to me is on me at that point. I would be well aware that just because I should be able to stand there with my sign doesn't prevent something that shouldn't happen to me from happening anyway.
Notice that what's being protested isn't even relevant to that chain of thought? Nor is what is right or wrong? Just or unjust? It's just exercising agency in accordance to an understanding of the circumstances present at the time. In reality, as soon as any violence started, I'd leave. Not simply because it increases the risk of something bad happening but because violence has no place in a lawful protest.
Does "should" ever prevent a woman from getting raped? Take your time and figure that out.
Maybe you can be more specific. How does shooting someone who has been disarmed and is lying face down on the ground 10 times in the back meet the elements of self-defense?
Something that no one - not even the agents - knew until after he had been attacked by agents. His weapon was in a holster on his belt and covered by his jacket.
This happened in his community and was happening to members of his community. So he was part of it.
He never pulled his weapon.
Protesting is not supposed to be dangerous. The people have a Constitutional right to protest.
This is not correct. This is not our system. It is not the principles upon which this country was founded. I am not rejecting the courts and Congress. They are part of our system. But demonstrating in the streets is also part of our system. It is enshrined in the First Amendment and has been acknowledged and protected dozens of times by the Supreme Court.
Yes, and early Christians would not have been fed to the lions if they had not defied the authority of Rome. Same old shit!
The point he made has been acknowledged and agreed to multiple times. Pretending this is not so and that people 'just do not understand' is going to be challenged.
The reason for the pretense is the refusal to acknowledge that when a fellow citizen is killed by the government —especially with an outrageous abuse of lethal force— pointing out innocent mistakes that many people would make is changing the focus from the killers to the victim.
Of course Pretti might be alive if he did not have his legal holstered gun on his body when he was tackled.
Of course Pretti would definitely be alive if he did not exercise his civic right to protest ... or to video government agents publicly harassing people.
All of that is obvious, and nobody contests it.
Key fact: The man was unnecessarily killed by federal agents ... shot 10 times. That is what is important here.
There are people who will never admit it is entirely the ICE/BP cops fault. In an open carry state, how can having a gun in a holster be a justification for getting shot?
Unless there is video of Pretti with his gun in his hand , he WAS innocent.
Again you illustrate that you realize your argument is flawed. Now you engage in a full-blown strawman while refusing to answer my question.
Nowhere have I suggested anything of the sort.
That describes what immigration policy was and that is why we now have a problem
The jury system is composed of human beings. Having tried jury trials, I can tell you that sometimes the results leave you wondering, but generally, juries try to do their best and do reach appropriate results. You would not want to live in a society where jury trials are not allowed.
Back here in reality. Oh, and by the way, Biden deported 4.3 million. No problem.
No, it isn't. That's just you attempting to change the subject once again. I started this thread. The subject was personal accountability for the exercise of one's own agency. This is not, nor has it ever been about federal agents or the government in general.
And that was acknowledged. Multiple times. Get a grip.
You know, Drakk, when people acknowledge your point they do have the right to also criticize how you phrased it and have the right to point out that your focus (your point) is minor compared to the fact that the government killed a fellow citizen with an outrageous, irresponsible abuse of lethal force.
First, I'd suggest learning the definition of strawman. Second, my question simply mirrored yours, only from my side of the argument. The point of it was to illustrate that, in spite of you claiming to understand my point, you keep trying to argue irrelevant points. "Should" doesn't matter if someone gets raped. Of course it shouldn't happen, but that has absolutely zero preventative power if she's getting raped. What does have power is recognizing the risks inherent for a woman out on the town and making rational decisions to mitigate risk.
You want to talk about government culpability. Fine. Start your own thread and have at it. This one is about personal responsibility towards ones own safety. I do not know what Pretti's mindset was concerning bringing a gun. Perhaps it was simply nothing more than "I have the right." Perhaps he fought back when ICE tried to arrest or subdue him because he though "I have a constitutional right to protest." Another poor decision. If so, that's the sort of thinking I want people to understand as extremely poor judgement. This thread is about what the individual does, not what someone else does.
And no, you do not understand. That you say "relatively minor" proves it. We can't control what others do. We can control what we do. To say it's relatively minor minimizes our responsibility and accountability for what we do.
Arguing a point that I did not make is a strawman argument.
And I never suggested it did. Again, you are playing games.
Yeah, Drakk, we all know that. So a woman should not wear provocative clothing in a dangerous neighborhood at night. Big surprise! Now, if she does do that, she has made poor choices. Those poor choices do NOT, in any way, justify her being raped.
It is the 800lb gorilla in this event.
No. I am commenting on this thread since my comments deal with your focus and how you phrased your argument.
In the context of an article dealing with the killing of Alex Pretti. So, too bad.
I think everyone already understands something that obvious. When are you going to recognize that your point has been repeatedly acknowledged?
Again, get a grip. When a fellow citizen is gunned down, shot 10 times with zero justification for the first shot, the fact that he should have left his holstered (which was already taken from him) gun at home is minor relative to his brutal killing by the government.
That you do not think that this outrageous abuse of lethal force is, relatively speaking, the major issue (thus Pretti's holstered weapon choice is relatively minor) then I question whether you understand what just took place.
From those numbers it looks like some just want an excuse to act up
Numbers are counted differently. ChatGPT offers:
Different counts, but still quite a bit of action dealing with illegals, and we did not have the disruption that Trump is imposing on communities.
We hear you...
What it looks like is that normal law enforcement works while Trump's armed masked unvetted thugs in our streets doesn't!
It is not the major issue because what the government did or didn't do is not the subject under discussion, TiG. Personal accountability is. Pretti contributed to his own death because of the choices he made. That is not minor in comparison to what the government may have done. It's major precisely because it is the only thing Pretti had full control over. You prove you do not understand the point when you say it is minor in comparison. It takes the accountability from one's own actions and places it on someone else.
That doesn't mean it lessens any accountability ICE or the government has concerning Pretti's death. They have agency, too. They are fully accountable for what they have done. That Pretti was armed doesn't therefore necessarily justify what happened. But just because they are the government doesn't remove accountability from Pretti.
The purpose of all of this is that people need to ask themselves "What am I doing? Why am I doing it? What are the risks? Is what I intend legal? How will what I intend actually help? How might it hurt? What things am I willing to take responsibility for?" and so on. Seems to me, most of these people are just caught up in the romance of being a protester. It's just emotional for them. "My cause is right and that justifies whatever I do." They do not see that the government is only half the equation in the chaos. They don't understand they are the other half. They don't see themselves as vigilantes.
But he did, jbb. That's what many don't get. He did obey the law.
That the whole chain of events began with a personal choice to go there with a gun makes me question if you understand what just took place. You know, that whole personal accountability thing I've been talking about? How every encounter begins with personal agency and what people do with it?
Yes, Drakk. And if you (Drakk) had gone to a protest and wound up getting killed for chanting and holding an anti-ICE sign, the whole chain of events started with your choice to go to the protest.
You keep harping on a point that nobody has disagreed with (best I can tell).
Then maybe local law enforcement should be in charge of crowd control so ICE doesn't have to get involved with it at all
You present a feeble argument; see my prior comments for why.
I disagree with your position. That does not mean I do not understand it.
Never argued that. Focus.
In the USA, peaceful protests are a cherished right. Getting killed while peacefully protesting (or capturing video) is not half. It does not compare in culpability/responsibility to the actions of the government. Shooting an unarmed, non-hostile, fellow citizen to death ... with an outrageous abuse of lethal force does not in any way compare to his mistakes.
You picked a very poor case to make your point.
If local law enforcement would find and arrest the illegals and turn them over ICE could then get them ready for deporting and not be a target for unreast
It may be the amount responsible that differs. In terms of all the things that may have contributed and just off the top of my head I would think 75 percent people that shot Pretti, 5 percent Pretti, 10 percent trump going after people other than what was promised, 5 percent protesters being violent and 5 percent Minnesota politicians rhetoric and not tamping down the violence..
Like I said that is just off the top of my head but imo they should all be reviewed
I am under the impression that is being discussed. I hope it is productive
Well, I'll stop wasting your time.
Appreciated.
People who shot an unarmed man in the back at point blank range only get 75?
Protestors have overwhelmingly been peaceful.
I see this talking point a lot these days. Why is only the rhetoric of the Left coming under scrutiny?
I think he sums it up
I included trumps staff with trump. Split it if you want
It is specifically Minnesota government that is helping egg on illegal impedance.
Agree or disagree with the percentages. They all contribute to the tragedy and I dont think letting any of them off the hook will accomplish the goal of stopping it from happening again.
Agreed. It's rational.
No, you look to just be trying to excuse murder, even if only by 25%.
Political promises get changed or ignored. Citizens protest. Rhetoric is spoken. It happens all the time without putting 10 bullets into an unarmed man.
Except it's not.
So the Charlie Kirk shouldn't have made people mad if he didn't want to get shot crowd has flipped on a dime....
Um.... do you realize what the most disturbing thing about this photo is? The guy kneeling next to Pretti doesn't have a head. It's the headless ICE agent. What does that tell you about the photo?
You will need to define your analogy. On its face, I do not see it.
Yes. They all contribute to a tragedy
Not inevitably.
Instead of analyzing what Perriti could have done better, we should focus on the systemic problem at hand: an out-of-control federal government.
Exactly!!!
At first that sounds like a good idea. But in many jurisdictions the police are already overwhelmed-- its difficult enough to keep up with ";regular" crimes (Non immigration violations).
Of course this varies between various areas....
That reminds me of a famous quote (attributed to Winston Churchill):
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time."
He is wearing a black mask that blends in with the uniform of the guy holding the gun.
It's amazing to watch and a perfect example of how distorted NT reality is.
Factcheckers have held the photo up an an example of AI misrepresenting reality. The Senator who used it apologized. Yet the true believers still cling to their original talking points, days after their fellow travelers abandoned them because they couldn't justify the lying anymore....
Why do you blame the site?
No one is forcing you to stay here.
Here'a a vintage NRA post:
We are in strange times. The GOP (not really the same party anymore) is being criticized by the NRA.
GOP - Gestapo Overkill Prevails
Trump has killed the GOP.
Giant Old Pussies who done got grabbed...
There are really some signifiant differences between the views of traditional conservatives and MAGA Republicans.
In the polls his "favorability rating" had been flip-flopping back and forth for a while. But more recently it seems its been decreasing, slowly but surely. (especially, but not limited to, many of the the "LatinX").
Profound differences IMO.
I was speaking more in terms of credibility, ideology, and platform.
One of the differences has been re: the immorality and lack of compassion amongst ICE agents . . . a
Their violent assaults on citizens, which is significant.
But recently I've also been hearing more & more that another issue is becoming widely noticed-- the cost to taxpayers!
Overall, nationwide Guard deployments cost federal taxpayers $496 million.
I was speaking more in terms of credibility, ideology, and platform.
Agreed.
There are several valid complaints against ICE actions. And the none of the defenses offered by the administration are valid.
It must cost a lot of money to terrorize a nation's population.
Trump's people have said that empathy is a defect. I'd like to believe that most people are more decent than that. And that most people will think ill of anyone who says such ugliness.
They created a special budget. A hundred billion dollars or somesuch.
People are saying its all the fault of The Gazpacho!
I remember that Elon Musk had said that empathy was "a defect' (or words to that effect).
Hi al Jizzerror-- nice to see you back!
Hi. How have you been?
Good.
And you?
And re: NT, I go through periods of being very active . . .and then I feel I need to take a break from social media for a while. Just the last day or so I've started to get a little bored and will probably cut back on my time online for a while.