Uncommon knowledge: Why won’t MAGA defend the Second Amendment?
By: Newsweek Editors
LIARS!
Trump Republicans have dropped the sham patriotism and revealed they HATE the Constitution, HATE the rule of law, and HATE Americans. The only thing Trump Republicans love about America is MONEY. Trump is creating a government of, by, and for MONEY.
The Trump Republican Party is the party of HATE and MONEY. There's no place for anything else.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A few hours after Alex Pretti—a 37-year-old VA ICU nurse and licensed concealed-carry holder—was shot dead by federal agents in Minneapolis, something unusual happened in American gun politics: the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America publicly demanded a full investigation into the killing of a lawful gun owner by law enforcement, even as Trump administration officials were insisting he had it coming because he was armed. It followed a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney suggesting officers are “legally justified” to shoot anyone if they “approach law enforcement with a gun.” (“Dangerous and wrong,” an NRA spokesman responded.)
Minnesota Police Chief Brian O’Hara confirmed that, by all indications, Pretti was “a lawful gun owner with a permit to carry,” and—crucially—carrying a permitted pistol in public is legal in Minnesota. Even failing to display that permit on demand is a petty misdemeanor with a maximum $25 fine for a first offense. The state where this happened explicitly treats breaches as a traffic ticket-level infraction, not a death sentence.
Against this, a movement that has long wrapped itself in the Second Amendment when the gun owner is on “its side” suddenly reached for law-and-order caveats when the lawful carrier was a protester they disliked.
Common Knowledge
On the right, several of the loudest voices blamed Pretti’s gun. Kash Patel, the FBI director, told Fox viewers: “You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines, to any sort of protest or rally in any state. You don’t have that right.”
Gregory Bovino, the senior Border Patrol official who was the ICE commander in Minneapolis, put it even more bluntly in a cable hit: “Why would you bring a semi-automatic weapon to a riot?”
Trump-appointed U.S. attorney Bill Essayli wrote on X: “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.”
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the victim “came with weapons and ammunition” and described the scene as “an act of domestic terrorism.”
President Donald Trump also defended the agents and attacked “corrupt Minnesota politicians,” writing: “In Minnesota, there is too much media attention on ICE… and not enough attention paid to the staggering sums of money stolen from the State.”
Uncommon Knowledge
Now contrast those judgments with the same movements earlier messages on guns. After school massacres, Trump urged more guns in the hands of “good guys.” In his 2022 address to the NRA—days after Uvalde—he reprised the line: “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” and called to “finally allow highly trained teachers to” carry concealed in schools. And after armed activists swarmed the Michigan statehouse in 2020, he called them “very good people” and told the governor to “make a deal.” Guns at a protest were, then, not a provocation for him.
The right has also spent years lionizing January 6 defendants—some of whom assaulted police—casting them as political prisoners. At an Ohio rally, Trump saluted as a recording by jailed January 6 participants played and later called them “unbelievable patriots,” reiterating his vow to help them “the first day we get into office.” One of them, Christopher Alberts, took a loaded handgun to the riots, and he was also dressed in body armor and carried a gas mask, according to Reuters.
That is the biggest example, but not the only one. Trump previously praised Missouri’s governor for pardoning Mark and Patricia McCloskey after they waved guns at marchers outside their St. Louis mansion (“They were defending their property”). He repeatedly suggested Kyle Rittenhouse “acted in self-defense,” insisting the teen “was in very big trouble” without the rifle he carried to a Kenosha protest.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has hit back on the Pretti case, telling reporters, “You know what you saw.” His attorney general, Keith Ellison, emphasized state law: carrying with a permit is legal.
Criticism isn’t only from the left. Representative Thomas Massie, the Republican from Kentucky, wrote, “Carrying a firearm is not a death sentence, it’s a constitutionally protected God-given right.”
In Minnesota, a person with a valid permit may carry a pistol in public. If a permit holder fails to display the card upon a lawful demand from an officer, that violation is a petty misdemeanor and—on a first offense—carries a fine “not [to] exceed $25.” Nothing in that provision outlaws simply attending a protest while armed. Indeed, Minnesota is one of several “shall-issue” states with broad public-carry rights, even in politically charged spaces, subject to specific location bans.
Multiple videos appear to show agents removing a handgun from Pretti’s waistband moments before the fatal shots—undercutting any claim that he was armed when they fired.
It also undercuts Patel’s televised claim that you “cannot bring a firearm…to any sort of protest…in any state,” which is simply false in Minnesota and many other jurisdictions.
The deeper story is how conflicting public opinion makes this pivot possible. On the one hand, Republicans say guns make civilians safer: in Pew’s 2023 survey, 79 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said gun ownership increases safety, while nearly the same share of Democrats said it decreases safety. That belief has long powered GOP resistance to new restrictions.
Johns Hopkins’ National Survey of Gun Policy finds enduring skepticism among gun owners about restricting where people can carry, including at demonstrations—only about 39 percent of gun owners supported banning open carry at rallies when first asked in 2021, and preferences have not radically shifted since. That makes it harder to square the claim that Pretti’s mere presence with a lawful pistol—without menacing behavior—made deadly force reasonable.
On the other hand, conservatives are also the party of aggressive policing—especially against protests they oppose. In a 2025 Washington Post/Schar School survey about sending federal troops to quell protests in Los Angeles, “nearly 9 in 10 Republicans” supported deployment. That preference for force over dissent sits awkwardly beside the movement’s claim that ubiquitous armed self-defense is what keeps communities safe.
None of this proves the specific shooting was unlawful. That requires a full investigation. But it does expose a national habit of treating the Second Amendment as a team jersey. When “our” guy is armed, the gun is deterrence; when “their” guy is armed, the gun is provocation. That is a politics of friends and enemies, not of rights.
Be a good human. Grossly derogatory comments, blatantly inflammatory comments, excessive trolling, mean-spirited taunting and insults, scamming, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed in compliance with the site's Terms of Service and the Code of Conduct. The moderators have the final word.
Tags
Who is online
251 visitors
Trump Republicans have thrown out the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments. Trump Republicans will destroy anything and anyone that stands between them and their love of POWER, HATE, and MONEY. Trump Republicans don't even bother to hide their lies and greed any longer.
Trump Republicans are un-American. Trump Republicans are the danger from within we've heard about for decades. Or were Republicans lying about that, too?
Life is made up of choices. I would call actively interfering with a law enforcement action while carrying a poor one. Wouldn’t you?
You believe a person should be treated as a threat because they are legally carrying a holstered weapon?
So if they are not carrying, what are they?
I believe he made a bad choice. What was he expecting to accomplish by carrying into that situation?
Since when is it a bad choice to legally carry? Do you support this effective restriction on 1st amendment rights which would encourage you to NOT carry a legal weapon in certain circumstances?
Should legal carry rights be restricted now?
It increases the possibility of something bad happening. Reminds me of the idiots saying you don't have to tell a cop you have a gun in your car if he stops you.
While it may be true almost any gun owner with any sense at all will tell the cop stopping them right away.
What choice was that?
Like that kid, Kyle Rittenhouse?
I believe he made a bad choice. What we he expecting to accomplish by carrying into that situation.
Answering questions with questions. Classic low end online etiquette I’ve come to expect from you.
Of course, you deflect and go personal.
What a surprise reaction from you when faced with a difficult probative question.
How should I know the inner thoughts of this man? He could legally carry a firearm. Ever think that he always carries it?
The obvious one.
Yep, another poor choice imo.
Doubling down eh. I guess you will once again avoid answering my questions here.
C’est la vie
You either support the legal right to carry a firearm or you impose conditions.
Do you support the government treating you differently if you are legally carrying and your weapon is holstered vs. someone who is not carrying?
Perhaps this “hard working VA employee” could have made better choices. Perhaps by choosing to disarm before choosing to interfere with law enforcement.
Perhaps
Tripling down now. No more answers for you until you start respecting others questions here. C’mon man ….
He wasn’t even protesting, just filming. He didn’t touch his gun, had the phone in one hand and the other hand up in the air. He was “interfering” with law enforcement about as much as a camera man “interferes” with a movie shoot. Yet you’re just fine with people of the opposite political persuasion marching around with AR15s while actually protesting, with both hand on their guns. Unbelievable.
Did you notice he said Rittenhouse made a bad choice in 1.1.9?
He could have said the Easter bunny eats cotton candy and it would have the same relevance. Rittenhouse and Pretti are not even close to the same situation. You know this. Kyle SHOT AND KILLED someone. Saying Rittenhouse made a bad decision would be way more relevant to saying ICE made a bad decision.
Did the cop who stepped in front of a running car with someone in the drivers seat make a poor choice?
Without his poor choice the woman would still be alive.
Nah but what is unbelievable is how often my friends on the left here try to put words in my mouth. Feel free to show me where I said something like that was a good idea.
Well, no. Unfortunately the old “words in the mouth routine” is all to present here …
Let em go, lots of misplaced anger there.
I’ve made my usual points to deaf ears. SOSDD
Been there, done that, same results.
Her poor choices preceded his.
And here I thought it was only me. LOL
I am a strong 2nd amendment advocate, but I feel displaying an AR-15 is not a good idea in any setting. Show me some footage of these people with AR-15's "getting involved" with Law Enforcement while they're trying to do their jobs!
If you were at a protest and you were legally carrying, regardless of whether or not you think that is a poor choice, do you believe the government can use the fact that you are carrying lawfully while holstered to paint you as a threat and use that as justification for killing you under any circumstances?
1st my idea of a protest is standing in a public space voicing your concerns or opposition to an issue, when you get physically involved with Law Enforcement you IMO are now a criminal.
I don't believe in open carry unless you are in Law Enforcement or out hunting.
No, but that wasn't the case. He elected to get involved with an arrest.
Please present any evidence this man 'interfered with law enforcement'.
Sorry, his poor decision to step in front of a running car is independent of anything she might have done.
Did Alex Pretti engage a physical assault on Law Enforcement?
Oh so you really are not a "strong 2nd amendment advocate".
What do you think he did that justified being killed?
Who said that?
Why would you say that?
I have no idea if it was a justified shooting. Do you believe he got involved with the women's arrest?
Pretending you did not understand my comment is a feeble tactic.
I quoted your words. When someone states: "when you get physically involved with Law Enforcement you IMO are now a criminal" what do you think that would mean to a reader given the context is the Alex Pretti killing.
Really? You just cannot figure out if it was justified to kill this man?? You have no idea??
He stepped into a women getting arrested, when was the last time you stepped in when someone was resisting arrest.
I don't know who fired what shot, if I were to jump to conclusions as you obvious have, I would say it was an accidental shooting.
I would call excusing the killers of Alex Pretti, after widely available video clearly shows that killing was totally unjustified, "accessory to murder after the fact".
An accessory to murder is as guilty as the triggerman.
Do you think it was justified for anyone to fire a shot at this man? If so, how?
Then it would be multiple (count seems to be 10) accidental shootings. You really do not know any of the details, do you?
Why opine when you clearly have not spent even a moment looking at the videos and reading the analysis?
Yeah, I just leaped to the outrageous conclusion that Pretti was shot multiple times by government agents ... even after his legal, holstered gun was taken from him.
Was he close enough to have contact with the lady that was being pushed away by Federal Officers?
WTF are you talking about?
Do you think the agents involved knew this?
Don’t be sorry, opinions do vary.
He's talking about eyewitness and video accounts of what happened.
Sounds like these agents got some top notch lethal force training. /s
He was disarmed BEFORE he was shot.
So... is it cool with you that ICE agents can accost anyone in the street, harass them, tackle them to the ground, assault them and kill them?
There are multiple sources backing this up. The government claims they have body cam footage. Do you think they will release it?
Watch this video:
I have...... a women who had been blowing a whistle in the ear of an officer got pushed to the ground, Pretti elected to get involved, he was armed when scuffle started.
Someone or thing fired a shot. The officers thought Pretti fired the shot and returned fire, tell me what I missed.
Right, but it wasn't Pretti because he had already been disarmed.
Three times in the back laying on the sidewalk?..
ICE agent took his gun, THEN shot him. That's called murder.
He was shot 10 times....that's a LOT of accidents.
Do you think the officers knew that when they shot?
What you missed? You have some fantasized version of reality.
Explain how the officers who shot Pretti think that he fired the shot.
Your post is ridiculous.
What does it take for you to stop trying to find some fantasy and instead objectively look at this reality?
This man was killed. This is serious. There is no way this should be happening in our nation, but it is. And people like you are not helping when you try to make excuses for this serious abuse of lethal force by our government.
Explain how they knew he didn't? Did the officer who took away his weapon turn around and shoot him? Did they admit to shooting an unarmed man? Who is being ridiculous?
You have lost sight what is considered "protest" which is what is causing the use of lethal force.
Because he was on the ground with 1/2 dozen agents holding and beating him. They were right there with all eyes on the victim (who had not done anything aggressive in the first place).
You. Obviously.
You still have not watched the video!!
How could they not? Is there some reporting that they saw a weapon in his hand before they shot him? In the back... I haven't seen it, if you have a link please share.
It is amazing that you could pen this utter nonsense. Do you not care how foolish your posts are?
He wasn't wrong. The history goes back to when the Red Coats abused their power.
ICE approached Pretti, that wasn't Pretti's choice. ICE became violent, Pretti did not. ICE escalated the violence, Pretti did not. ICE unholstered a weapon, Pretti did not. ICE discharged weapons, Pretti did not.
Pretti lost his life because of bad choices made by ICE. After iCE's bad choices resulted in a gangland style killing, ICE is now protected by the Trump criminal protection program.
So Pretti has no responsibility here?
Not unless he pulled his gun he doesn't.
Assigning some level of responsibility to Pretti accomplishes what exactly? You can blame him for going to the protest; that was his choice. You can blame him for capturing video; that was his choice. You can blame him for not leaving his weapon at home; that was his choice. You can blame him for helping the woman up after being pushed down; that was his choice.
If Pretti had not gone to the protest he would still be alive. He made choices that wound up with him being tackled, beaten, and then shot to death with 10 rounds. But none of his choices come close to justifying his being killed.
There is no justification for the outrageous abuse of lethal force. None. So why try to assign some blame/responsibility to the victim?
Bullshit, your understanding of concealed carry is sophomoric at best. A CPL is not carte Blanche to carry just anywhere. Carrying a concealed weapon to a potentially violent protest is asking for trouble. I’ve had a concealed carry permit for over 40 years and I would never do that. Wouldn’t even consider it.
He acted stupidly and it got him killed.
Let's be specific. We are talking about Alex Pretti at a protest. In this case, he had every legal right to have his holstered gun. It was not a good choice on his part, and if he were alive in hindsight, he probably would not make that decision again; however, he certainly did nothing illegal.
What was Pretti supposed to do? Shoot himself?
A more intrusive BIGGER Big Government breaking down doors, snatching people off the street, and commanding us to give it free reign because they have guns doesn't seem to be very MAGA. That sounds more like a left wing wet dream.
By tearing up the Constitution, Trump has taken away everyone's protections. Now that Trump has decreed the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments are null and void, the left wing can also do whatever they want. They'll only need bigger guns. Hell, if they follow Trump's methods they won't even need elections.
I was specific. Specifically 1.1.55 above, among other posts in this thread/seed.
No spin required …..
Is it your belief that it was illegal for Alex Pretti to carry his holstered weapon to the protest?
You either believe that or you do not.
If you believe it, then using your own words: "... your understanding of concealed carry [in Minnesota] is sophomoric at best".
He was supposed to make a good decision and not carry to such an event. I get so tired of people not taking responsibility for their actions these days. You’ll notice I’ve not defended ICE here at all but had he not made that stupid decision to carry to that protest, he would be alive today.
A heaping serving of culpability for him.
It was a bad choice by Pretti. Legal, and probably habit, but a bad choice nonetheless. Is this a bad choice that warrants his execution?
Do you recognize that he was tackled, beaten, and shot 10 times by government agents while holding only his phone and helping a woman who was pushed by agents? Want to weigh in on the other side of bad decisions and illustrate how the government's actions are even remotely justified?
I saw an expert say yesterday, someone likely much more expert than you, say the big city cops encounter people with guns on their person all the time. They are not allowed to shoot someone just because they find or see a gun on their person. The gun has to be in the hand.
There is a sizeable group of MAGA who blame Pretti entirely.
Exactly!
The order in which these two events happened is key:
1. First Pretti's gun was taken away from him,
and
2. Only after Pretti's gun was taken away was Pretti shot by ICE agents!
If he did not have an id and the gun permit on his person then yes.
Some one?
Or some two?
(The have been recent reports that after Pretti's gun was taken away by ICE agents then he was shot but by two agents not one. IThat info came out recently so we are still waiting for conformation)
And they would be wrong. But ignoring the small part he played is also wrong. If his decisions make someone decide not to take a gun to a volatile situation then not ignoring it is worth it. What do you get by ignoring the small part he played?
Doesn’t change the fact that Pretti made a bad choice by carrying to that event. That’s all on him. The catalyst to everything that came after.
And I never claimed to be an expert but I clearly understand the expectations and responsibilities that come with responsible CPL ownership much better than some folks here.
That would be interesting. If two it seems two agents were jumpy and two had their senses about them. The difference between the agents would be worth investigating.
I would be interested to know which city that is. To my knowledge no city is like the wild wild west where everyone can carry. I live in a carry state for 40 years and I have never seen anyone with a gun in a holster walking down the street.
I can't begin to tell you how many times that was reiterated in the 8 hour gun class I took to get a permit.
So, Democrats were correct all along? We need to ban guns? The only thing we ever needed was for Trump to decree a gun ban?
Ask Gretchen Whitmer about armed protests and get back to us.
Yep, if you don’t walk away from a CPL class more wary of carrying, it wasn’t a good course.
You missed the fact that Pretti was shot only after he was not longer a threat!
(Why was he not longer a threat? Because he was shot only after they removed his gun!!!)
C’mon Nerm, you’re smarter than that. Please leave that over reactionary BS for someone else. My point is simple and I won’t repeat it for the 50th time after this.
Conceal carry is not a blank check to carry just anywhere. And where one can legally carry comes with enormous responsibilities and liabilities.
Pretti chose stupidly by carrying to that event.
There are any number of legitimate reasons to legally carry a firearm into an uncontrolled environment to protect yourself and those around you. That is the purpose of a CPL permit. CPL permits are not issued to psychopaths, terrorists, or criminals. The fact that Pretti held a CPL permit blows huge holes in the claims that Pretti was some sort of irresponsible yahoo. Alex Pretti was no Kyle Rittenhouse.
Pretti acted like a responsible adult and did not reach for a weapon when he felt threatened. ICE acted irresponsibly. Pretti is the victim, the ICE agents are the perpetrators. No amount of Big Government justifications will excuse those ICE agents for what they chose to do.
It has already been established that he was carrying legally.
But you apparently do not understand Minnesota laws and that is what matters here.
per @1.1.56
Given the environment and conditions present, absolutely. Committing a crime, even minor ones, carries penalties. Committing the same crime while armed often increases the seriousness of the crime. In Pretti's case, he was interfering with police activities.
When you know you're going someplace knowing there's a high probability you're going to commit a crime. Interfering with police activity is a crime.
Yes, and they already exist, as I just mentioned. It is highly illegal to commit a crime while armed.
He's absolutely right. You are putting his views on trial while refusing the same trial for your own, so far.
He wasn't asking you to provide the thoughts of this man and you know it. He was asking for any possible good, necessary reason for him to carry one in that situation. You don't have to know Pretti's mind; you just have to come up with a reason that makes sense.
And, while he can legally carry a firearm, he can't legally carry it if he knows there's a high likelihood he's going to commit a crime, even if in his mind he doesn't think he's committing one.
False dichotomy. Especially since the right to legal carry already exists, along with already imposed conditions. Having the right to carry is not separate from the commission of a crime. It actually enhances the crime in many, if not most cases.
Taking this as a general situation question, no, and neither does the government. There's been many protests by 2A advocates where they are protesting and heavily armed (for civilians) and there's been no problem.
Taking this as a Pretti specific question, it's just you framing the shooting in a light that you prefer because it supports your argument. We do not at this time know why they shot Pretti. Certainly the gun was a significant factor, but we don't know anything beyond that.
Misleading question, as it implies Pretti had to do some sort of physical assault on the officers in order to have committed a crime. Untrue. All he had to do was physically be present in an area he knew he wasn't supposed to be in.
The feeble tactic was yours. You attempted to mislead the conversation that physical assault was the standard for illegal conduct. It's not, and Goose is back already pointed out one crime Pretti committed, although he had already committed another prior to that.
Depends on the reader, it seems. Like, someone apparently suggesting actual assault is the line, rather than merely being present and interfering with law enforcement. More feebleness. You are taking Goose to task because he isn't using your artificial and incorrect standard of illegal conduct.
In short, your whole participation in this discussion to this point has been an effort in imposing a narrative of your choosing. One that isn't a reflection of reality.
A few hours of class, some range time and plastic card does not magically bestow good judgement on an individual. Was he a yahoo? Who knows but a CPL by itself is hardly a good indicator in that regard.
Carrying at that event definitely shows poor judgement. It’s asinine to think it was going to somehow protect him and/or make others safer.
Incidently I just watched a podcast that alleges his parents are out there saying he rarely carried in public. He suddenly made an effort to carry in public at this event?
Stupid move imo.
Exactly.
He was murdered.
In my opinion, it is thinking like this that contributed to his death. You apply an artificial standard and think that it somehow protects you legally and morally. In reality that standard is like a 5 year old kid tying a pillow case around his neck in order to make a cape and thinking he can fly. In reality, armed or not, Pretti committed a crime just by approaching the ICE officers. By now it isn't reasonable that anyone doesn't understand that approaching ICE officers in this environment is considered interfering with law enforcement but, rather, obstruction. If anyone does approach when it's clear that this is interference, they are entirely responsible for doing so.
Boy are you in for a disappointment, especially if you think someone issued a permit is obligated to provide for your protection and they are not LEO .
Well, for anyone with an ounce of critical thinking, it should tell people that if you're going to protest, stay back. Do not approach for any reason. Pretti violated this for whatever reason and, rightly or wrongly, paid the price.
Or, more accurately, I can blame him for inserting himself into a situation that was both unnecessary and illegal, compounding it by being armed.
True. It is almost certainly true that since he did go he'd still be alive if he had not inserted himself where he should not have been.
That may be true, but it is equally true that, just because he was killed, it somehow excuses his actions prior.
Well gosh! I don't know. Maybe so that someone else can learn from his mistakes and not get killed themselves???
I have no idea what your comment has to do with justification for being shot. Whether he had broken the law or not is completely separate from whether or not it was a justified shooting. What is so hard for you guys to understand about that?
And I have no idea why some of you refuse to hold Pretti to account for his poor choices.
The irony here is watching normally hard left leaning progressives and liberals staunchly defending gun rights.
We are now truly in bizzaro-world …..
Another false dichotomy. It suggests that because it was legal for him to do so, he did nothing wrong and, therefore, anyone who finds fault with Pretti bringing it must be anti 2A on some level. Having a CCP is not simply permission (or the recognition of the right) to carry. In fact, that's the least of what it is. More importantly, it is the expectation of responsibility associated with carrying in the first place.
So, to frame this as Pretti doing nothing illegal in bringing his firearm misses what is relevant. There was zero reason for him to do so and every reason not to. His death, whether just or unjust, proves this. He bears some measure of responsibility for what happened to him. He contributed to his own death.
Have to wonder why you feel compelled to go personal. Can you not disagree without going personal?
I would think that the more important message should be directed at the government and DHS in particular. They are, after all, the culprits here.
Yes you certainly are driven to blame this man. He was legally there and did nothing illegal.
And you continue to just blame the victim. If you get run over by a car at a protest, it was partly your fault for not staying home that day. Focus on that, Drakk, instead of the individual who ran you over.
Nobody has excused his actions. Strawman. (And yes, Drakk, a strawman argument involves arguing a point that was not made ... or arguing a point that was acknowledged and pretending it was NOT acknowledged.)
Yes, quite the public service you are offering. Focus entirely on the victim and ignore the actual perps.
You are very interested in telling people something that seems pretty obvious based on these circumstances (Good and Pretti). What is obvious to any rational mind is that the current government DHS officers are out of control. So if you attend a protest, ensure you do nothing whatsoever to provoke these people in any way because they might just kill you regardless if doing so is illegal and unwarranted.
One does not solve this problem by trying to change human nature or try to get everyone involved to be super, super careful. One solves this problem by fixing DHS.
There's nothing hard to understand about that. Apparently, though, it is difficult for some to understand there are two issues being discussed here. One is whether or not the shooting was justified. The other is whether and to what extent Pretti contributed to his own death. I'm discussing the latter. Do you understand?
Absolutely and apparently very difficult for some to admit for some reason
Exclusively. Totally ignoring the 800lb Gorilla which is the outrageous abuse of lethal force by DHS.
Yes, what a horrible person. He was capturing video and was helping a woman who had just been pushed by an agent. What a terrible thing for a normal human being to do. What an unusual reaction for a professional nurse to assist someone who has been attacked.
Just terrible. He deserves to be killed with 10 rounds.
Insert masked gunmen en masse into a community harrassing citizens and rounding up illegals (et. al.) and shit is going to happen. You are trying to 'solve' this by getting everyone to counter their human nature.
Solve the problem by going to the root cause: out-of-control DHS.
Because that's the point. "Being right". By any means.
At the time the first Agent pulls out his gun Pretti was pepper sprayed in the face, beaten, sitting with both hands on the ground, and still surrounded by several agents.
Nothing there justifies shooting him in the back ten time. The shooter could have shot a member of his own team. It was not only not justified, it was reckless.
This accomplishes nothing. It contributes nothing. It's merely a distraction from the fact that ICE Agents in Minneapolis are acting with impunity.
You are ignoring what I have noted many times now.
I have routinely acknowledged that Petti (and Good for that matter) made mistakes. They were normal, human mistakes. Not anything that warrants being killed.
Never have I stated or even implied that these victims did NOTHING wrong.
Don't resort to such blatant dishonesty.
Speaking of “root” causes. The “800 lb gorilla” wouldn’t exist if the “latter” didn’t happen.
There is no excuse, none whatsoever, for DHS to engage in the outrageous abuse of lethal force we have seen with Good and Pretti.
You can try to defend this administration, but you are (yet again) on the wrong side of truth.
Don’t try to make it sound so noble. You admitted to it kicking and screaming after several attempts to ignore it.
A blatant lie. Yet again.
There is no excuse whatsoever for a responsible CPL holder to conceal carry a weapon to such an event. To do so defies all sound logic. He doesn’t carry to that event and he’s still alive today. End of story
[✘]
You are engaging in a strawman argument. I get it. You have nothing else, so you must pretend that someone (or me) is arguing that it was not a mistake for Pretti to bring his gun.
Thankfully, you are here to point out the obvious for everyone.
Here is another obvious bit which apparently you refuse to recognize. If DHS had operated according to protocol, both Good and Pretti would be alive today.
Where in that statement did I address you personally?
So agency on the part of non-governmental actors aren't relevant in any significant way?
Speaking for myself, I feel I'm driven to understand how and why this happened. And, no, he wasn't there legally. He was there illegally as defined by his actions.
I see it as a dispassionate analysis of how this man's actions affected outcome. Conversely, it is my opinion that you are doing the opposite. You are presenting a narrative and then asking leading questions in order to support that narrative for a desired outcome.
Yes, you have.
You still don't understand what a strawman argument is. A strawman is not arguing a point that was not made, as the word argument implicitly implies a counterpoint. Simply providing a counterpoint and suggesting it is a strawman means that any argument is necessarily a strawman argument. That's ridiculous.
Ironically, you do provide an example of a strawman here. My, and others, point is not simply whether or not Pretti made a stupid choice, but rather, the weight his choices hold in what happened. You acknowledge that he made poor choices but dismiss their relevance. The strawman portion of all of this is that you pretend that whether the government acted rightly or wrongly is our argument when it is not. It is solely the examination of Pretti's actions and how they contributed to his own demise.
Correct, except that Pretti is a perp himself. When you are examining the actions of the individual in order to determine how those actions contributed to outcome, actions by others simply become data points influencing those actions. The same thing applies if what is being examined is the government's (ICE's) actions. What Pretti did become data points relevant to how the government acted. What's hard to understand about that?
Apparently, it isn't obvious enough, as people keep sticking themselves into those situations.
Should I make some comment about you making this personal?
I'd say yes, now you're getting it, but I don't think that's the case.
They wont be happy until we agree that Pretti was just as guilty of his death as the people who shot him.
"anyone with an ounce of critical thinking".
Okay, I am now ignoring the rest of your post. You keep arguing notions that I have already repeatedly addressed in a way that looks as though I have stated the opposite of what I have actually written here.
If you come up with something new, something that has not already been addressed, then I will deal with it. But you trying to restore a lost argument by repeating the same shit is a waste of my time.
That depends. Is it your position that the current DHS officers are NOT out of control? If so, then I consider your position to be irrational.
Seems that way.
As before, it just is amazing (and sickening) that so many feel driven to defend this administration no matter what it does.
I'm sorry you feel this way. To my mind, what happened to Pretti is a lesson on what not to do. That, to my mind, is an important lesson. Righteous indignation will not save you, no matter how guilty the ICE agents may be.
No one has asked me whether or not I think the shooting was justified. I don't know why. I will tell you, though, that at this moment and lacking any new evidence, it doesn't seem a justified shooting. From the information I currently have, I don't understand why they shot him. If it wasn't justified, I hope that those involved are prosecuted and punished. I hope that any government agency that tries to prevent the guilty from being punished are also punished as well. I believe in what ICE is doing but that in no way justifies criminal activity on their part.
That said, that doesn't in any way excuse the crimes Petti committed. Nor should they be considered irrelevant in the face of whatever ICE did. It does not absolve him of the poor decisions that contributed to his own death. One is not greater or lesser than the other. If one wants to be righteous, don't take sides. Apportion guilt where guild is due.
I suppose that's easier than addressing them.
From multiple videos and eyewitness testimony Mr Pretti committed no crimes.
I really don't understand what you are trying to say. All the guy was guilty of is filming ICE and helping more venerable protesters from being hurt by the same ICE Agents.
Let me get this straight... Filming our government officials in the course of their duty while in a public place is a bad decision? Peaceful protesting the brutal treatment of other human beings in a public place contributes to one's own death? Having a permitted and holstered sidearm in a public place is contributing to ones own death? I vehemently disagree.
This country was founded on the very principles this man was upholding.
My grandfather, my father, myself and my son - all served to support the free rights this man should have had.
Obviously you are going to beat this dead dog until hell freezes over.
There are only so many times I am going to respond to you repeating yourself.
And to what end?
From multiple videos and eyewitness testimony, Mr Pretti did commit crimes. First, approaching the officers when it's been clearly established at this point that doing so with the intent to interfere is illegal. Second, he interfered with ICE officers when they attempted to push those women out of their area of operations. Third, he resisted arrest. Lastly, doing so while armed increases the level of criminality.
I understand. What I want to make clear is that in this situation, going up to ICE officers is an illegal act. It is interfering with their operations. That one is "documenting" does not negate that. It is not an excuse to violate the law. When one is given an order to leave the area and they do not, they are committing a crime. The women you say he was attempting to help were violating their AO. It is not the case that he was "just trying to help them" negates that. At one point, Pretti clearly faces the officers and attempts to prevent them from reaching the women.
To my mind, most of these protesters have no idea whether what they are doing is legal or not. I don't think they even consider the question. It seems to me that they figure the righteousness of their cause (in their minds) is reason and protection enough. Like, if they end up in court, all they have to do is say they were fighting fascism or something and that justifies whatever they did. Many of these protesters seem to have the goal of making the situation as intense as they possibly can, thinking it will make the feds go away. It won't. It just increases the danger. The more pressure they put on the feds in these protests, the more likely something bad is going to happen.
There is nothing wrong with protesting, if done legally. When you intentionally try to create the biggest confrontation you can, not so much. It's just asking for something bad to happen. And when it does they use the tragedy to further justify doing what they're doing rather than take accountability for the actions that caused it in the first place.
That doesn't mean the government (meaning the ICE agents in this case) isn't without fault of its own as, at the moment, the Pretti case appears to be a bad shooting. And if they are at fault, they need to be held just as accountable as he should be. What it does mean is that if we're going to pay anything other than lip service to justice or some pursuit of a political agenda, we need to treat what actually happened with indifference to anything other than the truth.
Not by itself, no. How and where can certainly be. Are you aware of any law that allows you to disregard lawful commands to stay back from law enforcement if you are "documenting?" That's part of the problem. I've seen so many videos of people claiming they are documenting some scene as if that gives them the right to be right there in the dogpile. When police shove them back they freak out about their first amendment rights. The First Amendment is not a license to go wherever you wish or do whatever you want. People can definitely document what they are witnessing, as long as they don't do so in a way that interferes with law enforcement.
You aren't being rational. That isn't meant to be demeaning. It's pointing out that you are making these statements without any regard to circumstances. Millions of people go about every day with permitted and concealed/holstered/open carried sidearms every day without problems. It is when you do something illegal that this changes.
Yes. And many died because of it. Consequences.
So did I. And it's not a case of "should have had." He had them. He just used them poorly.
Where do you get this crap?
I fed this to ChatGPT and asked if this was true:
I asked GoogleAI if Alex Pretti committed any crime at the protest:
These tools scan the web looking for information to fact-check your claim. So where do you get your facts?
Clearly you continue to focus your energy on blaming the victim and downplaying / setting-aside the outrageous abuse of lethal force by DHS.
How honorable. How noble. What a great public service this provides.
Exceptions like this:
... are mild disclaimers sprinkled into a volume of rhetoric blaming the victim.
Yeah, a "bad shooting". Yeah, "if" they are at fault. You confidently deem Pretti a criminal while cloaking the agents’ conduct in weak, conditional language, despite their engagement in an outrageous and profoundly unjustifiable use of lethal force.
Right after I posted my response to you, I found this. It does a better job of explaining what I'm talking about.
This is why I am harping on this. You guys just don't get how important this point is.
The only relevant fact:
HIS HANDS WERE ON THE GROUND WHEN THEY SHOT HIM IN THE BACK!
Um... Did you actually read what ChatGPT produced?
Okay. You go with that. Please don't go to any protests.
Because it's only important for those to use it as an excuse to detract from the reprehensible actions of ICE Agents.
You should probably just stop and, instead, try to find someone interested in a political argument.
Did you watch it?
Exercising our rights should not warrant being shot in the street.
Yes. What have you imagined it stated?
You labeled Pretti a criminal. The AI tools find no evidence that Pretti committed a crime.
Um, no. It essentially only states that no trials have occurred yet.
My commentary has absolutely nothing to do with politics. It is about the outrageous use of lethal force by DHS (our government).
That is far more important than your pointless and absurd attempts to cast Pretti as a criminal.
Yes, no trials have occurred. Is that all you got out of that?? You could not recognize the clear message that there is no evidence that Pretti committed a crime?? Indeed, it even notes that eyewitnesses counter the government's lies about Pretti.
Either this is an example of extreme cherry-picking by you or you just posted blatant dishonesty. (or both)
That isn't what the ChatGPT post is saying. Sorry. It is not saying that no evidence of criminality on Pretti's part exists. It is simply stating that there hasn't been any legal adjudication regarding it so far. Regardless of any other crime that could be brought to bear, it's pretty uncontestable that he resisted arrest.
How?
Some interesting information about Pretti.
First of all Asmongold is a far right You Tuber.
Second his clips of Alex Pettri misbehavior occupy about 20 seconds of a 3 1/2 minute video.
Third , yes it shows Pettri kicking in the brake light of an ice car. But as the right always likes to say, indeed you like to say, what happened in the minutes hours or days prior to kicking in the brake light. What ICE act provoked him? None? Oh okay, that would be just like Pettri did nothing to provoke the ICE cops on the day he was killed. What we are seeing, clear as a bell now, is that right wing media, unlike some conservative politicians , are all in on blaming Pettri completely for what happened to him.
You can barely get through a comment without saying why it is his fault. .
What do these words translate to in your mind? (ChatGPT):
Then what do these words translate to in your mind? (Google AI):
What do you hope to accomplish with this ridiculous denial?
Okay. I fed your ChatGPT into my own question about it and here's what it returned.
Now what?
It appears to me that anyone who doesn't completely embrace your views is far right. In fact, there appear to be two categories. Your political position and far right.
Yeah? And???
Okay. What do you think might have happened to justify the actions seen in the vid? Use your imagination.
Which is relevant how?
Pettri kicking in a brake light has nothing to do with him being wrongfully shot ten days later by ICE police.
Okay. In an effort to understand your argument, you turned "What we are seeing, clear as a bell now, is that right wing media, unlike some conservative politicians , are all in on blaming Pettri completely for what happened to him" into "Pettri kicking in a brake light has nothing to do with him being wrongfully shot by ICE police."
While it's true that Pretti kicking the brake light has nothing to do with him being shot, I don't see the connection with what the "right-wing media" is saying.
The whole point of the video is to assign blame for him being shot to Pettri.
OR if you think there another point tell us what it is.
What does that mean? You fed 'my' ChatGPT into your question is incoherent.
I find this to be interesting:
Looks like you gave ChatGPT some 'facts' that are untrue. Nowhere do I claim that he has not committed crimes; I challenged your claim that he has committed crimes. I stated that I have not found any evidence that he committed a crime during the event in which he was killed. So how could ChatGPT a) know of 'your opponent' (LOL) and b) get the idea I am trying to erase anything given my words say nothing of the sort?
I presented ChatGPT with this prompt: (feel free to do the exact same thing):
Prompt:
This was presented as something ChatGPT produced regarding the Pretti killing. Is this what you would have stated?:
Even taking the most conservative reading of the public footage, the following appear to be undisputed observable actions: Pretti approaches federal officers during an active law-enforcement operation He remains in the roadway after orders to clear it He positions himself between officers and other civilians they are attempting to move He physically resists being restrained (regardless of motive) He is armed (lawfully carried, but still armed)
Response:
Regardless, what you quoted does not support your claim that Pretti is a criminal. You claimed
You claim as a fact that Pretti committed crimes which led to his killing. And you listed them: 3 items. So you think that him capturing video is a crime. That helping a woman shoved by agents is a crime. That being tackled and reacting to the same = resisting arrest (that is not legally true).
The posted ChatGPT simply notes what ' could ' be a crime. It does not back up your certain claim of IS a crime ... and that Pretti IS a criminal.
You seem to have a very low requirement for what is considered a crime by Pretti and an extremely high tolerance of what is considered an outrageous abuse of lethal force by DHS agents.
I think we are well past the point where you can claim that you are not in an overtime effort to blame the victim.
And I think you're just rewording factual events in order to support your argument.
Now what?
Yes, I have learned that he was an activist. His death is documented fairly well. Do you think his killing was justified?
Based solely on what is available to me, no. I don't understand why they shot him. I can't see anything in the videos that would justify it.
That is nuts, Drakk. The words are there clear as a bell. Do you think ChatGPT and Google AI are 'just rewording factual events' too? Do you think the reporting on Pretti which predominantly holds that his actions were NOT criminal and that the use of lethal force was NOT justified are 'just rewording factual events' as well?
You are (and have been) on the wrong side of this issue. I cannot find a single reputable source that claims the Pretti did anything criminal in the encounter wherein he was killed. At the very best there are allegations of resisting arrest but nothing that suggests he was even under arrest for anything.
Your insistence that he committed crimes during this event is a weak allegation, yet you focus on it and almost entirely ignore the 800lb Gorilla which is that DHS has engaged in an unwarranted, outrageous abuse of lethal force.
Believe what you want, TiG.
Sorry. Didn't see this until now.
Do you mean what shows that he resisted arrest? It seems pretty obvious from the video.
I would recommend believing that which is based on reliable evidence.
Was he under arrest? Do you know the charge? The video shows that he was immediately tackled, surrounded, beaten, and the killed.
Odd how one can be arrested for capturing video with one hand and helping a woman who was shoved.
Odd how someone can justify anything simply by phrasing it right.
Projection.
You are the one bending over backwards to blame the victim who was killed (shot 10 times) in an outrageous abuse of lethal force by DHS.
As I said, you can believe what you want, TiG. I'm not going to bother with this anymore. It's just too boring.
TiG, some questions for the so-called gun rights people here (btw, these conservative gun supporters are at variance with their chief advocate: the NRA on the right to legally carry).
Furthermore, this discussion with certain conflicted gun carriers on site seems 'desperate' to GET PASS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. . .the man was shot and killed while legally carrying a gun not on his person when shot! That is, no one saw the gun when the shooting started. And if Mr. Pretti did not have a gun. . . that 'tool' of his could not shoot!
Why is a person shot for 'carrying'? What is the ;carry' offense itself? Did the officers SEE a gun in Pretti's hand or make assumptions? Who is responsible for NOT seeing the gun removed from the scene? Who is responsible for not announcing the gun had been removed from the man?
One has to ask where would you carry a gun. . . if not to an expected violence setting you expose yourself to. What do you mistake this assemblage for. . .a bunch of fools? Even the officers can 'appreciate' that Pretti was 'packing'. . . seeing that they ride around, are surrounded, and exposed to weapons all day long. That is, when did officers become 'deadly' afraid of guns they do not see?
Is it now the case that officers do not have to see a gun (in hand and pointed in the direction of causing harm) and can just eliminate a 'threat' that is not properly clear is a threat?
What should happen 'NEXT/Now'? (Mr. Pretti's life can not be given back to him. It's 'shot dead and done.')
As for this notion that you would not carry a gun to a protest. . .assuming you had something to protest about. . . why would we assume that a licensed gun owner would trust someone else to save him or her in an instance of violence? We would not make that assumption!
Yeah, your defense of ICE is based on authority. My question: Does the constitution authorize (gun right) authorize you to carry where you will (to a point) including "such an event" that is a protest—if your choice? Leave the ICE authority for a 'sec'. . . what AUTHORITY granted Mr. Pretti a right to carry period? Also, where are the SCOTUS designated places where guns are NOT permitted to be carried?
That is called selective and consistent partisan in support of a cause. (Blacks and other minority groups of all stripes are sadly familiar with being told we are wrong (as two left shoes), and we learn the 'lesson' that there is law for 'thee' and injury and death for 'thee.')
If they had arrested him instead of shooting him 10 times in the back, he would without a doubt have been released with no charges since he did nothing wrong.
I agree but it is sure to be brought up at a trial (if the judge allows it) as a counterpoint to the prosecutors claiming Pettri as a choir boy.
And there it is. . . civil rights be damned. . .the old playbook says 'dirty up' the victim so as to cloud the issue and then 'fight like hell' to have the focus on the counternarrative. . . be so busy distracted by outside issues. . . that the 'inside' issue can not be properly 'squared.'
Let's not forget that a man was violently shot ten times and it killed him grave-yard dead! While the officers that did so. . . did not see a gun at all because it was removed by one of their own that FAILED to announce it had been removed.
Department of Oops!
1.1.156. . . . . (Blacks and other minority groups of all stripes are sadly familiar with being told we are wrong (as two left shoes), and we learn the 'lesson' that there is law for 'thee' and injury and death for 'me.')
He wasn't under arrest. Yes, he resisted being tackled and pinned down. Do you see anything in the videos of that event that warranted that?
We are debat— talking at people who have a position that they do not intend to be moved from holding. Plain and simple. They 'want' what they 'want' and liberals had better give it to them or. . . face else. Flip the strip and they still hold the same viewpoint: Their 'guys' win every time no matter the scenario. . . and liberals (you) lose—even a life!
This is why they keep referring to the 'inviolable' space for authority figures (AGENTS) and accessible spaces for authorities to reach out and grab (or push) protesters. We have seen this behavior in the past. . . civil rights of these protesters are discounted, maligned, and after an incident law enforcement goes 'rifling' through the records to see how to EXTRICATE themselves from their own UNPROFESSIONAL behavior by pointing to so past misdeed or set of misdeeds by the individual and then building the narrative that: 'See, he was 'no good' and that is why we had to dispose (off) him or her.'
Incidentally, we have what appears to be some former law somethings on NT that first try to access the background of people to make a case that implies the victim of bad conduct from law enforcement deserved to be slapped in the face, bashed over the head, or shot dead where s/he stands. Such individuals do not give a damn about the truth. . . all they want is their perspective and worldview to overpower/own liberals.
We, liberals, are equatable to 'intelligent dogs' to their way of seeing us.
Nothing hard about it, liberals are versatile people. We think critically about issues of life and limb. And to that end, this perceived support of guns is not about the gun anyway. . . it is about the overbearing force and cruelty mingled with the death of an unarmed man by firing ten bullets into his body while he was fallen.
I think what has been happening is Minneapolis is outrageous - but that outrage is a 2-way street!
These protests have not been / are not peaceful - personally I think ICE has shown great restraint... one does not have the constitutional right to interfere with law enforcement nor spit in their face .. one does not have a constitutional right to stand 6 inches from someone's face and scream at them, then play victim... one does not have a constitutional right to throw projectiles at someone and not expect retaliation of some sort, one does not have a constitutional right to damage a vehicle and not expect to get punched in the nose (and the list goes one).. this 'ICU nurse' knew what he was doing and he accepted the potential risk of his actions - one person had already died by getting caught up in the chaos.
Jump up and down and scream about injustice, works for me - I do not believe that anyone deserves the death penalty for being a dumb fuck - however, justification at this point is subjective at best .. when you bring a knife to a gunfight .. you lose. He should never have been packing and then putting himself in a position to be confronting armed individuals that have been assaulted / threatened for weeks by a 'mob of victims' - if ICE yelled in one of the protesters faces, they would be crying about how threatened they were and claim they were assaulted - just how threatened do you think ICE feels when all they are doing is the job they were hired to do? Yet .. the victim narrative is received much better if it is presented in a way that makes the person out to be a virgin with a halo...? Just ask Senator Warren.
Elected officials / celebrities and whomever else if fueling the fire in Minneapolis should be held responsible / accountable for their encouragement of the actions taken by 'peaceful' protesters.
Honestly I have seen several weeks' worth of 'peaceful' protester actions that have warranted reaction .. sadly this man lost his life by getting caught up in the frenzy of his and other 'peaceful' protesters making. Let ICE do their job and POOF! they will be gone!
I have a concealed carry permit .. yet I am not dumb enough to put myself in the path of stressed law enforcement while packing heat without telling them, "Hey guys I am packing and come in peace.." best choice is to leave it at home .. just common sense not to pack heat and confront a well-armed individual trained to use it!
Peace...
P.s... ..please do not say he was unarmed before being shot .. by that point the adrenaline was off the charts, even the best trained individual will react, bullets cannot be called back to the barrel - do not kid yourself, the 2 that shot this man are devastated by their reaction and the end result of said reaction!
First, I am not sure you are not rolling several scenarios into one event involving Mr. Pretti. Feel free to clarify.
Now then since you state that these emboldened 'actions' by a protester or protesters are not constitutional. . . what is the proper legal remedy for such conduct under the law, in your opinion?
Are you aware that Guns Owners of America has entered this discussion (see article)?
Does this advocacy group know its rights are do they have it wrong, Colour Me Free? Please elaborate. Authority, . .what 'powers' does the second amendment give to gun owners like Mr. Pretti?
Do not confuse what is occurring here on this comment section. Nobody is giving Pretti a pass for any misdeed or illegal actions (yet to be determined/evidenced). We are asking the proper and serious question of why is he riddled with bullets? Why did he not make it to a court, jury, and sentencing? That is where the outrage lies. (We have not even gotten to what was UNPROFESSIONAL TREATMENT by not following proper 'policing' protocols of arrest.
When are police officers given carte blanche to 'go off' on a civilian/citizen and do whatever the hell he or she wishes until 'satiated' and pent-up anger is 'emptied out? Is such behavior PROFESSIONAL? Should we accept that an officer kills because of over-STRESS?
Mind telling us what right/s you are granted with your concealed weapon carry? I ask because I wonder if you have the right to protect yourself against non-law enforcement (civilians) only? Are you ever around officer (unbeknown to them) that you are 'carrying'?
What proof do you have that in the scrum, Pretti did not try or verbalize: 'I have a gun on me. . . wait let me explain'. . . or words to that effect? Where was the 'entry' to do so?
Importantly, as a concealed weapon carrier. . .do you 'naturally' assume that anybody/everybody else is carrying a weapon too? What percentage of the time do you take for granted that the person near you is 'packing' - say in the grocery store, at the check out, at the park, at the Super Bowl?
Now,. . .when an officer is on duty. . . is it a given that an officer assumes that s/he does not know whom is armed in her/his surroundings? Think about it. Officers likely assume all of us are carrying. . . until proven not to be the case! Why did it require a 'rush' response in Mr. Pretti's case?
I will give you a reason. . . because the officers from the outset were behaving like 'Alphas' - with aggression. Strutting around, banging heads, and 'taking names' because of Washington/DOJ immunity/impunity.
Question: How often do you see a single protester or group of protesters 'swarm' an officer or officers and mightily push any law enforcement officer around or to the ground? What 'policing' sanctioned powers/authority does a protester or any group of protesters have?
BTW, the way protest is being described as if it has a stigma of inherent violence attached to it. Why is that? If protest is always to be the bane of law enforcement's existence. . .why is protest even a thing that can bring about good?
Yes, I do. First, he was in the area of operation the Border Patrol was trying to keep clear. From what I have seen, officers gave several orders for people to clear the street. They didn't and Pretti even approaches the officers, something he had no justifiable reason to do. The officer shoves the women toward the sidewalk, causing them to stumble. Then Pretty interfered with that. He wasn't simply trying to help them. We see him trying to block the officers. That is obstruction. Then, when they tried to take him down to arrest him, he resisted arrest.
That is what I saw concerning Pretti's actions. It doesn't touch on what officers did at that time or at the time of the shooting. Concerning those things, I do not know if this was essentially a murder by an officer who lost control or if it was fundamentally an accident due to poor communication and/or training on the part of the officers. I'm going to wait and see what the body cams show, if we get to see those.
[✘]
They are not debating or discussing. They are broadcasting propaganda. NewsTalkers has allowed itself to become a fascist propaganda site.
So you also feel that Charlie Kirk is partially responsible for his death because he put himself in the middle of a crowd of protestors?
[✘] Charlie Kirk was not doing anything illegal. Pretti was.
Get you facts straight.
That's not idiotic or anything.
Were the agents who killed Pretti justified to fire a single round into his body, much less 10 rounds?
But he was.
Right, that's why it's right to ask how well trained these agents were.
Maybe, they can be heard asking "where is the gun".
You are correct. But when dealing with someone who is trying to blame the victim, it is probably best to be extremely specific and note that he was disarmed.
Greg shit has been out of control for weeks .. all the training in the world will not stop overreaction from happening and mistakes in judgement from being made. Ideally mistakes should never happen, but mistakes were made / are made on the regular - is it only ICE that cannot be human? there was no intent to kill this man .. as I said shit has been out of control for weeks. I am amazed there has been only 2 deaths with the violence being unleashed on ICE agents.
There are far too many 'Karen's' roaming the streets these days hiding behind their 'rights' meanwhile never considering that their rights end where mine begin - they slap others in the face - rant, rave and wreak havoc then cry foul and play the victim .. never taking into consideration how the person they just bloodied the lip of feels .. I was watching an older interview earlier regarding the left saying words are violence ... hmmm interesting, those same people that think words are violence can violently attack others with their words and not feel responsible for their own actions...?
Just a couple questions: have you had any tactical training with a firearm? Have you found yourself in a violent situation where you thought your life was in jeopardy? I have had tactical training, shot competitive pistol for years - and had my life threatened to the point I racked a shotgun unsure of what might happen next ... I did not thankfully have to use it - the sound sent the individual running.
My point is pan out and take a look at the bigger picture ...
Peace....
HAHA! Yeah .. I guess I am blaming the 'so called' victim for forcing law enforcement into the position to have to make a split second decision...!
Peace out!
There is nothing funny about this.
When someone refers to a person killed as the " 'so called' " victim, they remove all doubt that they are indeed blaming the victim.
As for split-second decisions, protocol does NOT call for shooting someone unless one has a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
The word 'reasonable' is operative.
A man tackled, on the ground, being pummeled by ½ dozen officers is no threat. Especially when that man's still holstered gun was removed from his person.
This was not a split-second situation. Nor was there any justification for lethal force.
Neither was Pretti. Your "facts" seem to be "alternate facts".
They seem like pure fantasy.
Because sometimes those in positions of power assume that whatever they do is legitimate, and the people, from whom that power is supposed to be derived, disagree with that assessment.
Or-
Sometimes "The Man" is wrong.
I said ... yeah I guess I am blaming the 'so called' victim .. was that somehow confusing for you?
No, it was crystal clear from your first post.
Now, do you think it is rational to blame the victim — to blame a disarmed man tackled and beaten by ½ dozen officers and then shot in the back 10 times?
And do you think it was following protocol? And do you think it was a legal use of lethal force?
One more thing .. if you want to talk actual victims, let's talk about Tamir Rice - a lil man brutally murdered by an officer that should never have been shuffled down the line to another law enforcement agency or how about Walter Scott shot in the back as he fled - he made a bad choice, yes ... yet these are victims that played no part in their own deaths.
.. Tamir was a lil man playing in the park - Walter Scott ran and was brutally murder, shot in the back .... Goode and Pretti should never have gotten the death penalty for their actions - but they played a part in their own deaths and should have considered the consequences of their actions!
Just my opinion and the last time I will engage you on the subject...
Grow up!
This is bizarre. You apparently recognize these two as genuine victims of improper lethal force by an officer, yet somehow do not recognize that Alex Pretti is also a victim of an improper use of lethal force by an officer??
You recognize this during a time when Trump was NOT PotUS, but when he IS PotUS and it is his administration that has sent poorly trained, poorly vetted officers with lethal force en masse into US communities, you switch to 'so-called' victim.
Good choice because your position is untenable and self-refuting.
That is a pathetic attempt to twist my point ... but please carry on, it is entertaining!
Oh, then by all means, make your point.
You hold that Rice and Scott were victims of improper use of lethal force. (I agree.)
You hold that Pretti (on the ground being beaten by ½ dozen officers before being shot 10 times) is a 'so-called victim'; i.e. NOT a victim.
Now explain to us all your rational thought process because I am confident that anyone objectively reading what you wrote will see that your 'argument' is self-refuting.
But if I am wrong, you should be able to honestly clear this up without breaking a sweat.
Two things are not being mentioned at all as select conservatives here are making their case against Mr. Pretti:
1. Counseling and therapy sessions for overly-stressed Officers/Force might decrease officer high anxiety and fatigue.
2. The officer who disarmed Mr. Pretti while he was being pummeled VIOLENTLY. . . did not call out "Gun clear!" or "Weapon secure!" to announce an end to a POTENTIAL threat. Note: Potential threat, not imminent threat.
Are you possibly suggesting this was a 'Police assisted suicide'? I do not intend to put words in your meaning. . . are you aware that is coming through? Elaborate, please.
Those who do not recognize that Pretti (and Good) is a victim of an outrageous abuse of lethal force need to explain this if they do not want to appear irrational. Thus far, none have.
After all, how does one support a claim that a disarmed man, tackled and being beaten while being subdued by ½ dozen officers, poses sufficient threat to shoot him even once, much less 10 times?
Seems like quite a tall challenge.
I predict it will either be addressed with silence or bullshit.
Friend Thomas, it actually is more of theme to . . . one of the 'planks' in the republican party/conservative 'movement' is 'backing the blue' -especially when liberals are involved:
The question is valid as even you acknowledge that you "guess I am blaming the . . . victim" - as if it is something not settled in your mind until directly asked about it!
It is being addressed with bullshit such as Steven Miller wrongly stating, "Ice has federal immunity" -despite the fact that federal immunity does not cover illegal actions . What we have here are commenters PARROTING rightwing columns, 'talking heads,' and conservative networks. . .without giving credit to the aforementioned. They come with the pretense of free-thought and 'perform' and talk down to the room. . . and when the holes in the talking points, columns, and 'mouthpieces' are exposed as specious and inconsistent (not a full-orbed set of points or poorly delivered, and lacking a 360 degree rendering) these 'big talkers' balk, go silent, or disappear only to show up on another column.
(We are not supposed to notice the above occurring, nevertheless!)
As a black citizen of this country, I have often heard about this 'cherished' and 'traditional' relationship between conservatives and Police. Conservatives, believe they are model citizens and liberals and the like are society's loose cannons, rebels, and RIFF-RAFF despite how high such individuals may socially rise. They 'wrap' themselves in 'Americana' thinking it is their values that safe-guard our nation against. . . well, 'outsiders' like us. . . and secularists like you.
Thus, they STAND with law enforcement keeping 'us' inline and 'making' us mind the laws they pass designed to keep themselves in-charge of everything.
TiG .. let us start with the Masters of Civil Disobedience ... Martin Luther King Jr.. Mandela, Ghandhi ... Malcom X ... even John Lewis .. they defined civil disobedience and even returned to a bridge after a severe beating to exercise their rights - but when law enforcement came at them, they put their stuck their hands out and said arrest me .. that is civil disobedience .. not this bullshit rhetoric and spitting in law enforcements faces .. begging to be a martyr for the 'so called' cause and click bait for 15 minutes of fame..
I do not expect anyone to agree with my opinion - for fucks sake there are times I have to check myself at the door - but this is not one of those times. I will not check myself at the door .. what is happening in Minneapolis is straight up criminal .. it is not civil disobedience nor is it a righteous cause!
What is the 'righteous cause' you failed to mention in Minneapolis? What violence to you see in the public videos on the DAY Pretti was taken down and killed committed by him? Pretti's body was made IRREPAIRABLE by law enforcement shooting him - an UNARMED MAN.
What about professionalism? Shooting an unarmed man is not something a professional does intentionally. The videos analyzed show at least two officers firing bullets into Mr. Pretti after he was already 'crumpling' and struggling under the first sequence of shots. . . . Does it appear to you at all that these officers did not intend for this man to make it to a hospital?
Who do you know that is 'invincible' to ten shots fired into his or her body?
And they certainly do not pretend that an accidental shooting does not deserve public apology. . . and instead continue on as if it did not merit such and to make matters worse (if that is possible) - GRANDSTAND.
I will go on record here your 'claims' of Mr. Pretti doing this for 'fame' lacks credibility and leaves me cynical.
Where is the part where you explain how you can hold that Rice and Scott were victims of improper use of lethal force, yet hold that Pretti (on the ground being beaten by ½ dozen officers before being shot 10 times) is a 'so-called victim'; i.e. NOT a victim?
In the encounter where he was killed, he was capturing a video with his cell phone. A woman was pushed down by a DHS officer and Pretti went to help her. In response, he was tackled, beaten, disarmed (the weapon was still holstered), and then shot 10 times.
Explain how he is NOT a victim of outrageous abuse of lethal force. Honestly, based on the evidence.
OOO dear God .. then cynical it is ... do you think your grand standing means anything to me? Pretti put himself in the line of fire .. right or wrong - he had other choices to make.. did he deserve a death penalty for his actions .. NO - but when you place yourself in the line of fire ... you will get burned .. Pretti's action were not civil disobedience .. it was a threat to law enforcement.
So, let's see. Imagine your adult child goes to a protest because she does not approve of masked, armed men en-masse publicly roaming the streets in her community taking away neighbors. A DHS agent pushes someone next to her and she goes to help her up.
Moments later, after being tackled and beaten, she is lying dead on the ground with 10 rounds in her body.
Would you consider that a justified kill?
Your comment does not match the facts. As no shots were fired and no guns raised until Mr. Pretti body was full of holes! Did you analyze video (yourself) as some have done in the newsrooms to see that at least two officers had clear sight to repeatedly blast Mr. Pretti. . . and you have nothing to say about this. . . NOTHING?!!!
Come on! There is a point where as Dr. King would say. . . "discern truth from falsehood" - Morehouse College 1947 student news.
I think you need to review his actions; I think you need to review the events of the past couple weeks -- Pretti is no martyr .. he just happened to be the one caught in the crossfire of severely stressed and abused ICE agents - but hey justify it .. far be it from me to pass judgement on other peoples ignorance
Tamir Rice and Walter Scott were not challenging anyone .. one ran, the other one simply breathed .. big difference... but hey I have wasted too much time already...
Have a nice night!
You are ignoring the question. It does not matter what Pretti did over the past couple of weeks. During an encounter, officers don't review the logged history of a person and then serve as judge and jury and decide to use lethal force. At least not officers who follow protocol.
What happens is that they take action based on the encounter at hand. But you refuse to focus on what actually happened.
That should tell you something about your argument and your conclusion.
You would have a case if Pretti had charged an officer with the intent to harm him severely. Or, better still, if he had pulled his gun and pointed at an officer. Totally different scenario.
But in this case, in reality, plain as day with video evidence, Pretti had his phone in one hand, went to help a woman who had been pushed by a DHS agent, and within moments, he was tackled, beaten, disarmed (weapon was still holstered), and then shot to death with 10 rounds.
You cannot provide an argument to justify your refusal to recognize that he is a victim of an outrageous abuse of lethal force. Ask yourself why.
Ask yourself why your reasoning would be entirely different if it were a child or friend (or a contemporary Dr. King) lying there dead with 10 rounds in her because she dared help a shoved woman and dared to capture video with her cellphone. And even if the day before she was verbally abusing agents!
Why do you persist in "debating" with people who are not themselves "debating"? They are not "discussing".
They are broadcasting fascist propaganda. Every time someone addresses a Comment to one of them, they win. Regardless of content. They get another opportunity to spew their lies.
When you "converse" with a MAGA, you give him a place at the table.
The police exist to enforce the law.
The rich make the law.
Not complicated.
Okay, so do you suggest I just let them spew propaganda unchallenged?
Hmmm.
Bob, that is a good point TiG has made!
Yes. They'd have only a sliver of the audience that you give them.
It's not as though you have ever budged their position by a millimeter. "Engaging" them accomplishes nothing. Except to give them a rostrum.
Yes, Bob. I do not disagree. . . and there is a saying. . . 'It takes two to tangle" I will add while the audience looks on at the spectacle. On the opposite side, there is another saying. . . "Give them an inch and they will take a mile (or two or three)" - so as uncomfortable and protracted as it can be this arduous (and 'dirty' work) must continue.
Now a positive explanation of this concern:
Bob, you may have been here oh around 2017 when TiG and me first arrived (from NewsVine) as 'refugees.' Well, if you do recall, TiG and I were not friends (as we are now) we were actually better categorized as a religionist and a secularist and our interactions (discussions) were 'legend' as we were polarized almost to the point of 'open hostility' . . . and after a time (granted we have reconciled several vitally important issues that we struggled with and yes. . .) I warmed more to his secular understanding than he to my religious understanding. Here's why:
I came to understand how some evangelicals were fanning the flames of Christian nationalism and religious 'camps' into one continuous blaze that intentionally and deliberately hurts Others. That is, my religious 'body' shows definite signs of being in manifest error. . .and like iron ore smelted down to get at the impurities and remove them to refine steel. . .I turned to face my religion 'family' and confront them about their conduct only to find certain aspects of Christianity as a unit surely intend to displace and subjugate Others as a part of a larger religious and national theme. Heck, they even consider my faith component as detached from the 'body' of Christ!
In the offing, I openly declare this: Secularists have a right to be free, have liberty at their disposal, and prosper un-abriged by the specter of religion hovering and imposing on their day to day lives. It is a choice.
What am I saying. . . yes, change can come fast to some of us and for others it is a crawl. TiG, appears to be extraordinarily patient (even I sometimes think he puts too much effort on a certain point-it is what it is) with debate and its output.
Okay, I have done what I did not mean to do- tout and likely embarrass TiG before this assemblage. Let's just say I hope it gets the point across. I will end with something Jesus said:
Matthew 9:37 "Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few."
Some people want to learn. Some do not. You've been observing MAGAs here on NT since Tea Party days. Have you ever seen a single one change their mind?
You, personally, have evolved a lot over the last few years. Your Comments are more solidly based, and at the same time they are more open to discussion. Impressive.
I have seen nothing even close, on the MAGA side.
As you say, it takes two to tango.
Thank you, Bob! There is a compliment in there and I "claim" it!
Well, we will continue to MAINTAIN EQUILIBRIUM on NT where it is found to be slacking and 'wanting,' and I give props to all those that wait for this 'harvest' of goodwill to blossom even one-by-one.
How do you figure that? If I never challenged these ridiculous claims, how does that reduce the claims?
BTW, I do not challenge ridiculous claims to convince the author that they are wrong. It is done to expose and counter the falsehood for the consumption of others.
I used to think "Nerm" was MAGA -straight. There seems to be a "glacier" shift under him. . . and I like it. . . Just saying!
Why is Pretti no martyr? The facts are that ICE approached Pretti. ICE became violent, Pretti did not. ICE attacked Pretti with chemicals, Pretti did not attack ICE. ICE escalated the violence, Pretti did not. ICE unholstered a weapon, Pretti did not. ICE used their weapons, Pretti did not.
Pretti was disarmed by an ICE agent who left the scene without announcing he had the gun. An ICE agent unholstered his weapon and fired at Pretti while other agents were trying to restrain Pretti. What kind of bozo discharges a weapon aimed in the direct of their partners? A second ICE agent fired his weapon apparently because he heard a shot. After Pretti had been whacked, the ICE agent who fired the 1st shot searched the body for the gun (not Pretti's hands but Pretti's body) and only then learned that Pretti had been disarmed.
Pretti died because the ICE agents were irresponsible, incompetent, unprofessional, and violated protocols. The ICE agents really did break a number of laws because they did not follow protocols and crossed the line into criminal behavior; even if that was unintentional. Poor training and inexperience is not an excuse for breaking protocols and breaking the law.
Whether or not Pretti was armed makes no difference because Pretti never used a gun to threaten the ICE agents. Pretti was easily disarmed, there was no struggle for the gun. Pretti was not violently struggling with the agents trying to restrain him. It's true Pretti had assumed a defensive position and was not complying with orders but the ICE agents introduced so much confusion that its difficult to tell which orders Pretti was supposed to comply with.
ICE created the conditions. ICE had enough agents on hand to control the situation. And, yet, ICE did not control the situation and resorted to lethal force. Was that ICE's intent all along? Was ICE only looking for an excuse to execute someone as a means of intimidating protesters?
Where is this fascist propaganda of which you speak? Often it seems that anti-fascist rhetoric is only a thinly veiled advocacy for anarchy.
Denying MAGA a place at the table is certainly not a rational, civilized defense of anything. That's an ultra-autocratic approach to social organization and peaceful coexistence. Is peaceful coexistence compatible with anarchy?
MAGA is not the same as Republican. I still think many of the grassroots proposals of MAGA are what the country needs. But Trump has killed MAGA so it really doesn't matter any longer.
Trump has transformed the political landscape so that now we have two radical far left political parties. Democrats have limited their radicalism to left wing social issues. Trump's Republicans are an emerging left wing radicalism for everything else.
Good questions! Well said, Nerm!
I do not know that Trump is "radical left" anything; it is evident that Trump is "radical Right" by definition. That is, Christian nationalism, "traditional values," and ultra-conservativism plus.
To whom?
To readers.
Bob, explain to me why you post on NT or elsewhere.
It seems like you are arguing that we all just stay silent.
To those who are 'conflicted' in their thinking. That is, they have not yet come down on one side or the other in politics or worldview. An 'unattended' discussion can persuade people of misinformation, disinformation, and/or outright set of lies.
In theory, we should be able to communicate reasonably and truthfully with everyone on the site! Practically-speaking this site would become an 'echo chamber' if two 'silos' were allowed to exist. . . and nary the two interacted. Bottom-line: What other option is there?
True. I'm wary of Nerm because he shifts topics and goalposts... and everything else... But I agree that his posts have changed tone.
Everyone has a place in a debate. The only requirement is good faith. I don't see good faith debate in MAGA. I see lies, dissembling and denial.
Those are not components in debate.
Do you see the same with some leftists or are they simply perfect beings?
Actually... I do not.
Do you think TiG lies? Do I?
[deleted][✘]
[✘]
Here is a simple list of what normal people would consider lies. If you believe they are not, go ahead and explain why you think that way..
My list of Democrats’ biggest lies of 2024. Do you agree?
Prove that I do that! I am quite careful to fact-check what I write. If I accidentally post something that is false, I am not going to intentionally repost it.
Also, cut with the personal crap. Answering Bob's question (which inappropriately made me the subject) does not give you the right to make things personal.
This is a perfect exampe of why I don't engage with you. I asked two simple questions... but you ducked. This does not interest me. I do not understand why anyone would be interested.
Coming back to this a week later I see only two up votes to this vid, including my own. Anyone who has gone through a marginally decent CPL course understands how cogent this point is and highlights how many here can’t or won’t grasp it.
Yep, you are correct. This guys vid is spot on. Absolutely. Many of our friends here on the left of this issue, don’t get it and never will.
No more need be said …..
Oh I grasp it alright. And the question is not about Pretti's 'blunder' or Ice's 'authority' . . . there is an implication by the video 'guy' that Pretti's gun produced a problem for the officers. . . while it was NEVER drawn by Pretti. Please indicate how that is possible (while holstered) if you can.
Secondly, there is an issue of excessive police force (see 10 shots on an unarmed man 'down'). . . it seems the officers did not follow their own PROTOCOL when isolating/separating a weapon from its LICENSED owner ("Gun secured!"). Please explain why this is not being commented on by 'our friends on the Right in here.
To be clear(er). This liberal is not engaging this discussion because Pretti was without 'error'. . . it is because Pretti is dead from probable blunders by all involved! And yet the agents are being 'cleared' (here) for no other reason than. . . they are "authorities" -as if that alone entitles all of them to conservative SUPPORT with impunity and no question of civil, human, and legal rights.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
No you don’t and all of your comments here are just more empirical proof that you don’t.
The video highlights the point being made from about 0:40 to 1:05
No more need be said …..
They’ll go back to defending 2A when maga counter protesters start gunning down unarmed protesters (wrongly known as domestic terrorists). America is no longer America.
We'll see exactly how spineless the MAGA sycophants in Congress are this week as they pass a funding bill.
Many people are saying that its starting to look like that may not change until after the midterms . . .
The left defending gun rights. Now I’ve seen it all.
Given this, are you aware that Bovino claimed that Pretti was a violent threat to the DHS agents because Pretti had a gun. Pretti was legally carrying and the gun was holstered.
So, legally carrying a weapon, holstered, can be used as an excuse by this corrupt administration to paint you as a threat and justify killing you.
How do you feel about that?
The irony at play here is massive. That said, I’ll answer your question but I have one for you first. Are you licensed to carry?
No. But my brother is a gun aficionado with all sorts of weapons and legally carries.
That is all irrelevant though ... entirely anecdotal.
Now. Let's see if you are really going to honestly and directly answer my question.
As expected, silence from you.
Again:
So, legally carrying a weapon, holstered, can be used as an excuse by this corrupt administration to paint you as a threat and justify killing you.
How do you feel about that?
Not anecdotal, it establishes a level of understanding. Anyone who has completed a thorough CPL course learns the expectational responsibilities that come with it. A CPL is not carte blanche to carry just anywhere and good judgement must be used every where else.
As I noted elsewhere. Why did he do it? What were his expectations in doing it? He made a bad choice. Period.
Not everyone lives on this thing like you. I was busy answer others here. Relax.
That does not answer my question. I did not ask if it was a good choice or not.
Here is my question:
So, legally carrying a weapon, holstered, can be used as an excuse by this corrupt administration to paint you as a threat and justify killing you.
How do you feel about that?
If you were at a protest and you were legally carrying, regardless of whether or not you think that is a poor choice, do you believe the government can use the fact that you are carrying lawfully while holstered to paint you as a threat and use that as justification for killing you under any circumstances?
lol …. You should write election proposals. You know, where a yes answer means no.
Of course it doesn’t give them the right to kill someone but not so fast. Your “slick” wording attempts to gloss over the cogent part of my argument. Choices. That is the point. I have a CPL and “chose” not to carry all the time. For example, if I plan on drinking. You see it is illegal to be intoxicated while carrying. Yes, 0.02 limit in Michigan. Much lower than 0.08 limit for driving.
Life if full of choices. Bad ones can have bad consequences. Including poor decisions made by those you interact with after you make bad choices.
Why was that so hard for you to acknowledge? Why all the dancing around?
Of course, merely carrying a legal weapon is not justification for killing someone. This should be obvious to anyone.
But that is what the Trump administration is claiming. They are taking the fact that Pretti had a weapon as justification for killing him.
Worse, they lie and claim that he was threatening the lives of the agents with that weapon.
This is a corrupt administration and anyone attempting to provide excuses or deflection, etc. is doing a disservice to this nation.
That’s laughable coming from someone who regularly answers questions with questions here. Your credibility in that regard is near nil.
I’ll leave the rest to Clinton smear campaign resistologists.
Are you?
How to say i haven't read the comments without actually saying it.
Keep reading ….
Yes, Jan 6th bad. Alex Pretti good. Get it?
That photo is not from Jan 6th.
Still the same either way
If one legally carries a weapon and keeps it holstered, should that individual be treated differently by the government from one who is not carrying?
Yeah we understand how you would support those people being gunned down simply for protesting with weapons...
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. My position here has been crystal clear. Standardized attacks from the left here are expected though ….
Of course they should.
Would you be as wary of dog with no teeth as much as a dog with teeth?
Oh, so you believe that legally carrying a holstered gun should be taken as a threat by a government agent. So killing a protestor who happened to have a legally holstered gun is justified because he is viewed as a threat?
Answer my question please. It’s sad that I need to keep telling you that
You either condone what ICE did, you don't. Or maybe it's just okay if that person isn't a MAGA populist?
Which goalpost am I looking at now?
You are playing a pathetic game of deflection. I am not going to respect stupid questions from you like "Would you be as wary of dog with no teeth as much as a dog with teeth?".
Get serious, be honest, and cease the childish games.
Valid analogy. Another interesting question would be if our friends from the left were in a grocery store in a state that allowed open carry would they be a little leery of someone walking down the aisle with a holstered gun?
If you were at a protest and you were legally carrying, regardless of whether or not you think that is a poor choice, do you believe the government can use the fact that you are carrying lawfully while holstered to paint you as a threat and use that as justification for killing you under any circumstances?
[deleted][✘]
[deleted][✘]
[deleted][✘]
I have been trained in the use of lethal force in both the US Army and US Coast Guard. No training in my ten years of service has anyone at any time said it was okay to shoot an unarmed man on the ground surrounded by multiple members of my team.
First, I wouldn't be at a protest carrying. Second, I can't speak for Minnesota but where I am from if you are not carrying your permit and ID you are not legally carrying. Third there was alot more going on than a peaceful protest, it was a volatile situation.
Not regardless, it is a bad choice. Just because you have the right to do something does not mean you should. In the interest of people not dying instead of just looking for someone to blame do you not see the possibility of getting hurt at a volatile protest increases if you are carrying? Not that you deserve to be shot but that the chances increase. When I got my permit the class instructor drilled it into us that having a permit is a responsibility.
IMO unless he had the gun in his hand and starting to aim at anyone they should not have shot him. They definitely should not have shot him if they had taken the gun away. I understand there are body cams being looked at and they are trying to determine if his gun was discharged.
Do you think if the person is struggling with officers and they see a gun they should not consider that a potential risk and try to take the gun away because he might be carrying legally? Hint: I am pretty sure if you are physically struggling with LEO you are no longer carrying legally. If you were in a grocery store in a state that allowed open carry would you be a little leery of someone walking down the aisle with a holstered gun?
There you go. A rational position.
Not once did I object to the officer removing Pretti's handgun.
He was tackled! It would be very different if he had initiated an attack. He did no such thing.
Sure. One never knows what the individual might do. But it is legal, so until the gun is brandished, the individual is not doing anything wrong.
And in this case, Pretti was tackled and subdued without ever even touching his gun, much less brandishing.
So he never had his gun in his hand. Key point. Thus he should not have been shot (much less shot 10 times and killed). And it is surprising in a good way that you can recognize this.
He was pepper sprayed and then gang tackled before being shot in the back ten times.
For rightwing religious conservatives, it was a "righteous kill". Let's face it, rightwing religious conservatives have always held a double standard on the 2nd amendment. They have long been creating laws that targeted black and minority gun ownership, this is no different now. They want to keep guns out of the hands of those they perceive as enemies which is anyone who doesn't kneel before the white conservative Christian patriarchy. Pretti was an agitator, an enemy of their rightwing Christo-fascist agenda so they create a narrative that makes him the perpetrator of his own demise. Rightwing religious conservatives do this because they're cowards and know they'll lose if they fought fair at the ballot box.
Of course, they don't see it that way. They see it as unfair that all these people that don't look like them, think like them, pray like them, love like them and vote like them, get to vote at all. They see America as a zero-sum game where unless white conservative Christians are in charge, then America is too broken to save so they support the unstable arsonist in the oval office literally demolishing the white house and our nation. It's blatantly obvious when you look at how fast these conservatives were to justify the execution of a man for simply having a holstered weapon and daring to help a woman who had been shoved to the ground by the goose-stepping rightwing Christo-fascist Gestapo.
That is fkng hilarious. Especially after all their failed gun grab attempts.
It legal gun owners with valid permits to carry can be summarily executed by our government agents as suspended terrorist threats without due process then your second amendment rights have been effectively voided by Trump and his private thug army ICE!
[✘] Bottom line, Pretti was irresponsible by presenting himself in that situation with a holstered weapon. As noted elsewhere, a CPL comes with massive responsibilities. You can tell the folks here who don’t understand the concept.
Pretti made a bad choice and it got him killed.
Are you aware of the fact that President Trump has criticized Pretti merely for having a gun?
I’ll leaving the Trump bashing to the pro’s here.
MAGA is abandonning the 2nd Amendment like rats leaving a sinking ship.
Are they? I wouldn’t know.
All?
Have you yet seen President Trump's criticising Pretti's being armed at the beginning of this confrontation?
As a CPL holder Pretti did act stupidly by carrying to that event. What do you think he hoped to accomplish by doing so?
[✘]
Maybe protecting himself from professional instigators, Antifa agitators, and rabble rousers? Maybe Pretti was carrying to protect ICE from a real mass shooter? Large crowds to tend do attract mass shooters and terrorist, don't they?
There any number of legitimate reasons for Pretti to carry a firearm into an uncontrolled environment to protect himself and to protect those around him. Isn't that the purpose of a CPL? I don't think psychopaths, terrorists, or criminals can qualify for a CPL. The fact that Pretti held a CPL permit blows big holes in the claims that Pretti acted irresponsibly.
The facts are ICE approached Pretti. ICE became violent, Pretti did not. ICE escalated the violence, Pretti did not. ICE unholstered weapons, Pretti did not. ICE discharged weapons, Pretti did not.
Pretti acted like a responsible adult and did not reach for a weapon when he felt threatened. It was ICE who failed being responsible adults. Pretti is the victim, the ICE agents are the perpetrators. No amount of Big Government justifications can excuse ICE for what they chose to do.
How do my friends on left like to put it.
” gun ownership isn’t going to protect you from the government, they have more guns” or something like that.
Nah, that’s all unrealistic bullshit thinking he was single-handedly going to protect or prevent something at that protest with that one weapon.
And if he was so afraid for his life perhaps he should have stayed away instead of showing up packing. Another poor choice ….
How is Pretti legally carrying a firearm any different than teachers having firearms to respond to school shootings?
This seems to be a pick-and-choose political defense rather than a principled stance. The arguments cheapen all the rhetoric and demands concerning 2nd amendment rights for the sake of political expediency. How can the public believe anything Republicans say now?
The same can be said of ICE. If ICE reaches for a weapon anytime they're afraid then why should they be there? Or is it really because ICE is looking for any excuse to reach for a weapon?
You are comparing that to the known volatile situation in Minneapolis right now? Guess I’m glad I didn’t go to your schools.
And the left is in their usual “it isn’t my fault” no personal accountability bullshit mode. Nope, I ain’t buying what you’re shoveling.
Well hell then. Let’s disarm all law enforcement officers. I mean, they all just might actually shoot someone after all …..
This from 2023:
This from 2018:
This from 2017:
Are you calling Trump a liar?
I’m not calling Trump anything. Plenty of others here who thrive on that sort of thing. Your comparison (deflection) to arming teachers doesn’t even begin to frame my points in this discussion but then again by now, you are fully aware of that.
Have you been through CPL training and/or are you a CPL holder? That’s is to say, have you been trained/educated on the responsibilities and rules of concealed carry?
I've always defended gun ownership and the 2nd amendment. I just recognize as did even Justice Scalia, that the 2nd amendment isn't unlimited. We have laws that restrict weapons of war, explosives, chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction. These are good laws and do not diminish the 2nd amendment in any way. That means each State can ask its voters to determine what level of 'weapons of war' they want to restrict. But sadly, some lose their fucking minds (not that there was much to lose) whenever someone suggests restricting assault rifles again. As if the Brady bill killed the 2nd amendment while it was in force. Being against sensible gun laws is just stupid, but that seems to be a defining characteristic of the rightwing conservative ammo-sexuals.
We can blame Trump for unleashing a pack of 'human-wild dogs' on the public. The public has no concept of what these 'animals' have been told they can do. . . in the name of immigration control. . . and thus the public is not mentally prepared to be manhandled and even shot like vermin. Trump told his "police" to not be so nice when dealing with anybody who gets in their way-he told them that times over. And that is what these animals are doing - not being 'nice.'
What makes that statement so funny is that, when it comes to apprehending illegals and deportations, it's the same DHS department, following the same laws, and run by the same person that was given an award in 2015 for doing EXACTLY what is happening today.
So provide the "instructions" that they were given? Show us exactly what instructions were given.
I am pretty sure Christie Noem was not in charge of DHS in 2015. There were no repeat images of 'shock troopers' on our television screens and ordinary citizens were not constantly being ghoulishly steamrolled and improperly injured and killed. See 3.5.1. And then MAGA 'away' . . .
Your need to label folks not of like mind probably is an indicator this will be waste of my time but I’ll give it another go.
The key word in your comment above is “sensible.” My level of distrust in politicians absolutely peaks when there is an expectation of sensible gun control. Monkeys will fly out of my butt before that happens.
Everyone is for sensible gun laws. The problem is in defining “sensible.”
There were also no dimwits interfering with ICE operations.
So you can't provide the "instructions" and are relying on what somebody told somebody that told you.
I will leave the "dimwits" to you to decide. As to the rest: What are you relying on, Jeremy?
What part, the dimwits interfering with ICE operations or the instructions you can't seem to provide?
Whichever portion you are "relying on," Jeremy.
Both are observations really.
It's an observation that only a dimwit would interefere in ICE operations. We've seen the results of that across the country.
It's an observation (this one more factual that the previous) that you can't provide the instructions you claim were given.
So an "observation" is what you depend upon to give you INFORMED information. What do you WATCH? Because 3.5.1 is an "observation" too and you fail to recognize it properly!
More factual than anything I've seen from you and the rest of the left.
that is what somebody told somebody that told somebody that told you. You haven't provided a damn thing to back up your claim. If you say "instructions were given" then provide a copy of those instructions.
We're done wasting 'precious' quality time here. Bye now.
Right is right, no matter the party(ities) involved. Truth is not partisan-it is truth. 99.99 percent of liberals are seeking truth in discussions.
This is what MAGA seems to not properly understand while MAGA conservatives keep with their ridiculous efforts of pretend that liberals are aliens from out of space or from 'bum-f-ck Egypt.'
Sparty On, your 'practice' as you imagine it to be of not taking a gun to a protest. . . is not supported by Gun Owners of America's statement above. It is your alleged personal choice ( feeling ) as an individual.
I imagine you are only pushing this because of the verbiage the "Gun Owners of America" used.
Meanwhile there is NOTHING in the 2nd Amendment covering anything even remotely close to what they and you are trying to push.
There is nothing that precludes it. There is no case law that precludes it.
So you cannot make the case that it is illegal to carry a legal weapon while attending a protest unless you focus on a particular state and view their laws. Given the right to bear arms is a broad characterization, if it is not allowed at a protest, this must be made as a legal exception.
In Minnesota, for example, it is perfectly legal to carry a legal weapon at a protest:
Jeremy, imagine anything you wish. . ."free" country comes to mind. . . . I quoted for you what Gun Owners of America has to say. . .go IMAGINE what the organization is 'pushing' - good luck with that!
It’s called trying to have your cake and eat it too. Don’t hearing any chirping from the left about a well regulated militia right now do you?
Two things can be correct at the same time (have cake/eat cake). Do I hear an 'Echo' in this chamber? Yes, I do!
I don’t you understand the concept of that phrase. Study up.
Don't waste time being condescending. It is wasted on this room and us.
Lol
[deleted][✘]
Oh and never will. It is funny that the people now crying about the 2nd Amendment are the ones killing people.
How do we know he made a bad choice? The only decisions that I've seen were to have his phone out filming and try to help a women, who does appear to be protesting, up off the ground. Has it been established that he was a protestor? He could just have easily been headed to the deli when this shitshow unfolded around him. There doesn't appear to be any justification for his killing to me.
The justification, per the government, was that he was legally carrying a holstered weapon.
Which he appears to have been relieved of right before he was shot to death on the sidewalk.
Yes
It would be really nice if the right would offer more logical, pragmatic, realistic opinions here. I certainly was not expecting this from you, but you should direct to your people here, not just randomly sounding off to nobody in particular. The right has been systematically going out of its way here to justify every horrific thing ICE does.
So you think carrying a concealed weapon to an event like this is a good choice?
Was his choice to remember to have a gun just for this event?
Or:
Since he was legally carrying a gun, that was important to him-- so every time before leaving his house he would routinely check to make sure he had his house keys, wallet, phone, and gun?
So you think it was a good choice. A yes or no question.
No
Exactly
Do you think those agents acted appropriately?
The one officer did something against protocol which cascaded causing Pretti's death, we have all seen it, because cameras captured it but that doesn't mean the other officers seen it.
When it was found that he had a holstered gun, during the struggle one officer grabbed the gun and left with it, he instead should've pronounced "Weapon secured, weapon secured" and show the other officers the gun. The officer that shot first either seen a hand removing the gun from the holster or the gun was now missing thinking Pretti had pulled his gun and shot causing the other officers to step back also thinking he had the gun and unloaded on him. If the one officer just left the gun in the holster Pretti would still be alive.
This thing about if the camera caught something happening means that everyone involved also seen it, is flawed beyond all reason. Only the camera and the officer that removed the gun were the only ones that knew he was disarmed.
Which cop saw the gun in his hand ?
Microsoft Copilot: Your AI companion
Deadly force is only legally justified when an officer reasonably believes there is an imminent threat of serious physical harm—not simply because a gun is visible in a waistband. U.S. use‑of‑force standards require an objective assessment of danger, not a presumption based solely on possession.
Key Legal Standard
Graham v. Connor (1989)
Officers may use deadly force only when it is objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
The assessment must consider:
Immediate threat to officers or others
Severity of the suspected crime
Whether the suspect is resisting or attempting to flee
A gun in a waistband may contribute to perceived threat, but does not automatically justify shooting without additional indicators of imminent danger.
Federal Policy (Department of Justice)
DOJ policy emphasizes preserving human life and using only the force necessary to gain control of a situation.
Deadly force is permitted only when an officer has a reasonable belief that the suspect poses an imminent danger of death or serious injury .
Mere possession of a firearm—especially if not drawn or pointed—does not meet this threshold by itself.
Why “Gun in Waistband” Alone Is Not Enough
Many states allow lawful firearm carry.
Officers must distinguish between:
Possession (legal or illegal)
Threatening behavior (reaching, drawing, pointing, verbal threats, sudden movements)
Policing experts frequently note that shootings often stem from failures in tactics or communication rather than unavoidable danger.
Chicago Context (Your Location)
Chicago Police Department policy emphasizes:
Sanctity of human life
De‑escalation
Using force only when necessary and proportional These principles further reinforce that visible possession alone does not justify deadly force .
Bottom Line
A police officer cannot lawfully shoot someone solely because they see a gun in the person’s waistband . There must be specific, articulable facts indicating the suspect is about to use the weapon in a way that poses an imminent threat.
Here is a thought, do not shoot a human being unless a) you see a gun in his hand, and b) that gun is pointed at someone.
One does not get a pass for being trigger-happy.
The gun was pulled from his rear waistband while he was facedown on the sidewalk. I agree completely that procedures weren't followed. However the agent that shot him first in the back was standing directly over him when he was disarmed, in the videos. Did he not observe the weapon being relieved?
No I do not but that doesn’t absolve Pretti of culpability here nor am I qualified to judge the shooter. Although It was stupid to carry concealed to such a potentially volatile situation.
And here’s another thought, don’t judge people doing their jobs unless you have actually done that job. Because you are unqualified to do so if you haven’t.
Then the only people one can put on a jury to judge a rogue DHS agent are fellow DHS agents.
To judge an insurance executive, the jury must be loaded with insurance executives.
To judge a politician, the jury must be loaded with politicians.
... on and on ...
You made a ridiculous assertion.
We judge others based on evidence, reason, and the law. Too bad if that does not work for you.
You cannot 'judge' the shooter but your next sentence judges the victim.
It is an easy matter to judge if it is kill an unarmed man or not! Oh and by the way, federal agents should not be instructed to behave like local people are the Enemy. HOW UNPROFESSIONAL! Start there, and cooler heads may oblige all around!
No more of this 'alpha male-alpha female' conduct! The citizens of this country are not 'children' for the administration to 'whip,' beat down, and destroy when it decides.
So what?! Mr. Pretti was swarmed by ICE agents weighted down by their professional paraphernalia; his gun stripped from him; still shot graveyard dead. . . and MAGA supporters declare that the officers involved in the tussle, removal of the gun, and shooting death were PROFESSIONAL. They were UNPROFESSIONAL.
How about judging someone for NOT doing their fucking job? Shooting people in the head or unloading a clip into a disarmed man's back is NOT these assholes job. They're supposed to be protecting Americans, even the ones that disagree with them.
Have you ever been PotUS? No? Then you cannot judge any PotUS.
That logic make sense to you?
Then I guess someone needs to explain to you the difference between a jury trial and a discussion site like NTers.
Here we have no judge presiding over a trial giving the jury instruction when needed. No lawyers arguing the case, no closed door deliberations with a group of your peers, etc, etc.
Once again your assertion, about ridiculous assertions, is pure projection.
A whole clip eh? Wow but I agree on the killing part and I’m glad we finally agree on Ashli Babbitts “unarmed” cold blooded killing.
Some common ground …..
Decades of maintaining a CPL more than qualifies me to judge that. Don’t you agree?
We 'talk' news here. Hence the site name: NewsTALKERS. We are not a court of law so we do not carry the 'burden' of proof or its consequences!
When you can draw proper parallels to an unarmed woman stepping through a 'no-trespassing' breach of an official government federal building where the threat of invasion and death is real is shot once resulting in her death to an unarmed man protesting on a 'any' street in this country and is shot over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over - let's discuss. Otherwise. . . nothing.
I have never worked as a waiter or mechanic. . . and I bet I can sure be a judge of what an improper-proper service given to me or performed on my car. Why? Because perspectives come in at least two types: Giver and receiver. Onlookers can check the giver and the receiver perspectives and decide from accounts given/received which one stands up to scrutiny. Jurors are citizens. . . not experts. . . thus, they make gut decisions based on the facts presented and what their morals and standards tell them! And for that matter so do we all-including MAGA supporters!
It would be quite the 'study' to observe the response from "MAGA-ville," USA if a democrat president sent. . . what do MAGA conservatives call them: "Jack-boot thugs" and "Masked men," and "Brutus Beefcakes" into so-called red-states. . . instantly (*snap*) perspective will shift and supporting law enforcement obligingly will be thrown off the table!
How funny, you moved your own goalposts. That is a new one.
You said "don’t judge people doing their jobs unless you have actually done that job".
I guess using a jury as an analogy (people passing judgment) confused you.
Here is something easier then. Given you have never been PotUS, your rule means you cannot judge any PotUS. So I guess all your Biden criticisms were unfounded.
But you did not judge the shooter, you judged the victim. If you are going to play that game then why did you not judge the shooter too?
And you did this after claiming you are not qualified to judge either.
And now you claim you are qualified to judge.
So you are all over the map. Pick a position. You are making us all dizzy.
Seems you are having difficulty following here so let me help you out
Hope that helps.
Wrong. See above.
That is all a “you” problem. Not a “me” problem. Stop being so disingenuous.
Your position is absurd. We have every right to judge people based on evidence, reason, and the law.
Every time you judged Biden or Harris or Obama or … you judged someone’s job performance on a job you never had.
And of course, we judge politics, policies, and principles. . . and for good reason! We judge morality too, albeit best done privately and individually.
We would not have much of a discussion site if we have to be experts on every topic we collectively address. Incidentally, experts speak on subject matter they are trained in and have gained experience within. . . making it damn near impossible for any expert to address presidential level policies when an undefined lot of presidential decision-making is CLASSIFIED and OFFICIAL USE ONLY.
Yet, 'everybody' that votes - has opinions about each and every president we have ever had leading this nation.
“Charlie Kirk was asking for it by saying controversial things”
“The National Guardsmen were asking for it by being present in DC when the left didn’t want them to be”
“You can’t hurt a guy just because he’s engaging in armed obstruction of law enforcement”
Same people.
Do you think he was engaged in "armed obstruction of law enforcement"?
"Obstruction" . . . how?
By being shot after his gun was taken away by ICE agents?
It's hard to listen to the blatant bullshit some conservative assholes insist on trying to spread. Anyone can see from every angle that Pretti was not obstructing anyone, he was helping a woman to her feet after she'd been shoved by a shit eating bully getting his rocks off abusing women. But what else can you expect from the right, lying comes to them as naturally as being monumental hypocrites.
There are photos of MAGA rallies WITH GUNS all over the Internet. Nobody shot those demonstrators.
It appears that only MAGA may invoke the 2nd Amendment.
The "tea party" carried guns to Obama rallies while Republicans spread false fears that electing Obama meant he would take away their guns. Lots of photos of those gun carrying tea partiers during both Obama elections.
Trump was just waiting for a Democrat to carry a gun so he can destroy gun rights. He already knows MAGA will go far enough to attack the US Capitol and he cannot risk MAGA turning against him.
That's why Trump locked down DC with the National Guard, not just as a threat to Democrats but an open message to MAGA not to try it again.
Trump will go after gun rights, why did he want a brand new bunker under his new golden ballroom? He knows how far MAGA will go.