The_barBEARian said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

303Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

303Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

303Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

303Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

303Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

That Truth Social post from Trump is good to see. That should help to turn the temperature down.

Senior Trump official bungled the admin response to Pretti’s tragic death this weekend — but POTUS knows politics, sees the writing on wall & and is clearly stepping in to try to right the ship quickly.

In the past 15 hrs, POTUS has:

>declined to defend the agent who killed… https://t.co/GbWPjMgrs8

— Rachael Bade (@rachaelmbade) January 26, 2026

---

This white ***** is reading things into his post.... but she brings up a interesting point. Trump needs to stand behind the officer involved in this shooting. If they sacrifice another officer to the communists to cleanse themselves of any blame then I and many others will sit out the midterms. Republicans need to support our ICE officers the way the left supports their domestic terrorists and antifa foot soldiers.

---

Way to start from a position of reasoned sexism.

So do the same thing that former presidents (Obama with the "acted stupidly" comments, as a singular example) did, but in a way you support, despite the pendency of any investigation or any evidence to the contrary.

Can you provide any actual evidence of the deceased being part of any domestic terrorist cell or a member of antifa?

If investigating and possibly holding ICE officers who pursued three people across a street, pushed two of them to the ground (both women - I thought defense of women was a big thing on the right the last few years) then shot another US citizen 5+ times (i have seen the number be high as 10, but I have not seen it confirmed how many rounds actually hit his body) accountable is a " sacrifice [of] another officer to the communists" then we might as well pack it up and all give up on governmental accountability at any level.

For the record, I dont think Derek Chauvin should have been convicted, so I look forward to addressing a different irrelevant deflection you will undoubtedly raise.

---

I'm more concerned with Somalia Gangster accountability right now and the billions in fraud that the American tax payer is expected to pay for.

The guy was a cancer to this nation and I'm happy he's dead. I'm going to pretend like everyone else on this board that it is a shame that my enemy, who wouldn't give a **** about myself or my family getting robbed or murdered by illegal criminals, got shot and killed for provoking, harassing, and physically assaulting ICE officers.

---

What does welfare fraud have to do with the ICE operations in MN? Most of the names I have seen of those arrested are Hispanic with very few Somali's here and there. Is ICE required to investigate the fraud? Why even bring that up in this discussion? Welfare fraud can be bad (it is, its rampant and needs to be curbed) and other things can still be true.

Sad you are happy another person is dead just because he didn't agree with your politics on a singular issue (and maybe he did generally agree, just not with the current federal approach to arresting illegals (and a few hundred/thousand citizens without warrant or basis - but what are constitutional violations if I like the policy and optics)). Seems like you have a very binary and non-critical view of the situation. Thats too bad.

---

Welfare fraud has everything to do here because it has been reported many of those doing the fraud are not citizens.

Non citizens don't get constitutional rights.

---

The bolded is just factually and legally incorrect.

---

No it is factually correct and legally correct.

Otherwise why are we not running all over the world to arrest those who are violating our constitution???

Because the constitution only applies to citizens.

---

Not sure what is more shocking; that you somehow managed to be more wrong the second time, or that someone actually starred this post.

---

And yet you can't seem to answer a question but instead go off on a tangent.

---

You could google it but I am happy to oblige for the sake of I have nothing better to do with my time.

1. The Constitution applies to non-citizens generally. This was first established in 1903 under the Fuller court. Far from some radical, Melville Fuller was quite conservative and his court was far from activist. This general notion has been affirmed and expanded by numerous SCOTUS decisions over the years and has not been seriously challenged ever to my knowledge. There are certain limitations, but everyone in the US gets general civil rights under our constitution, even those here illegally.

2. We dont police the world because we lack generally lack jurisdiction outside of our borders (with the exception of crimes against the US, and the apprehension of individuals with active federal arrest warrants - this is the basis the admin is going with for calling the capture of Maduro legal, we will see where that goes but based on existing precedent, they are probably right).

---

Compared to a lot of the morons on here, I really appreciate your posts although I may not always agree with you politically. I appreciate the logical specificity (not that anyone really cares).

---

What is you definition of "moron"?

Does it mean exceptionally intelligent?

Literally nothing in his above post was specific.

He didnt reference a single case.

I just check Fuller wiki and he actually ruled the exact opposite in Downes v Bidwell where they found people from newly conquered territories were not citizens and consitutional rights did not apply to them.

Makes me think he lazily got this from chat gpt or grok.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So the folks who ignored the law so they could come here, can ignore the law to stay here, because you want rights to work that way.

---

What an obtuse misunderstanding of what has been said here.

I don't particularly care how rights work as long as they protect people from government abuse and overreach (regardless of who is in the Whitehouse or controls Congress) but they work how they work under established law and SCOTUS precedent.

---

What was specifically incorrect about what I said?

You don't like it, that does not make it untrue.

Bottom line is illegals need to be deported. Opposing that is opposing law.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The very first part of any contract, and the Constitution is a contract, is definitions. It's not possible to apply a contract to people not signatory to that contract, which means it's not possible to apply rights or responsibilities to people who are not citizens.

---

Which would mean it's not possible to arrest them or charge them with a crime, since they have no responsibility to obey the law.

---

Of course it's possible to arrest criminals. And the idea that you can ignore the consequences of your actions, well, we see where that goes.

Silly you would think otherwise.

Or would you prefer we treat them as invaders, or combatants?

---

303Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

303Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

303Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

303Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

303Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

303Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

That Truth Social post from Trump is good to see. That should help to turn the temperature down.

Senior Trump official bungled the admin response to Pretti’s tragic death this weekend — but POTUS knows politics, sees the writing on wall & and is clearly stepping in to try to right the ship quickly.

In the past 15 hrs, POTUS has:

>declined to defend the agent who killed… https://t.co/GbWPjMgrs8

— Rachael Bade (@rachaelmbade) January 26, 2026

---

This white ***** is reading things into his post.... but she brings up a interesting point. Trump needs to stand behind the officer involved in this shooting. If they sacrifice another officer to the communists to cleanse themselves of any blame then I and many others will sit out the midterms. Republicans need to support our ICE officers the way the left supports their domestic terrorists and antifa foot soldiers.

---

Way to start from a position of reasoned sexism.

So do the same thing that former presidents (Obama with the "acted stupidly" comments, as a singular example) did, but in a way you support, despite the pendency of any investigation or any evidence to the contrary.

Can you provide any actual evidence of the deceased being part of any domestic terrorist cell or a member of antifa?

If investigating and possibly holding ICE officers who pursued three people across a street, pushed two of them to the ground (both women - I thought defense of women was a big thing on the right the last few years) then shot another US citizen 5+ times (i have seen the number be high as 10, but I have not seen it confirmed how many rounds actually hit his body) accountable is a " sacrifice [of] another officer to the communists" then we might as well pack it up and all give up on governmental accountability at any level.

For the record, I dont think Derek Chauvin should have been convicted, so I look forward to addressing a different irrelevant deflection you will undoubtedly raise.

---

I'm more concerned with Somalia Gangster accountability right now and the billions in fraud that the American tax payer is expected to pay for.

The guy was a cancer to this nation and I'm happy he's dead. I'm going to pretend like everyone else on this board that it is a shame that my enemy, who wouldn't give a **** about myself or my family getting robbed or murdered by illegal criminals, got shot and killed for provoking, harassing, and physically assaulting ICE officers.

---

What does welfare fraud have to do with the ICE operations in MN? Most of the names I have seen of those arrested are Hispanic with very few Somali's here and there. Is ICE required to investigate the fraud? Why even bring that up in this discussion? Welfare fraud can be bad (it is, its rampant and needs to be curbed) and other things can still be true.

Sad you are happy another person is dead just because he didn't agree with your politics on a singular issue (and maybe he did generally agree, just not with the current federal approach to arresting illegals (and a few hundred/thousand citizens without warrant or basis - but what are constitutional violations if I like the policy and optics)). Seems like you have a very binary and non-critical view of the situation. Thats too bad.

---

Welfare fraud has everything to do here because it has been reported many of those doing the fraud are not citizens.

Non citizens don't get constitutional rights.

---

The bolded is just factually and legally incorrect.

---

No it is factually correct and legally correct.

Otherwise why are we not running all over the world to arrest those who are violating our constitution???

Because the constitution only applies to citizens.

---

Not sure what is more shocking; that you somehow managed to be more wrong the second time, or that someone actually starred this post.

---

And yet you can't seem to answer a question but instead go off on a tangent.

---

You could google it but I am happy to oblige for the sake of I have nothing better to do with my time.

1. The Constitution applies to non-citizens generally. This was first established in 1903 under the Fuller court. Far from some radical, Melville Fuller was quite conservative and his court was far from activist. This general notion has been affirmed and expanded by numerous SCOTUS decisions over the years and has not been seriously challenged ever to my knowledge. There are certain limitations, but everyone in the US gets general civil rights under our constitution, even those here illegally.

2. We dont police the world because we lack generally lack jurisdiction outside of our borders (with the exception of crimes against the US, and the apprehension of individuals with active federal arrest warrants - this is the basis the admin is going with for calling the capture of Maduro legal, we will see where that goes but based on existing precedent, they are probably right).

---

Compared to a lot of the morons on here, I really appreciate your posts although I may not always agree with you politically. I appreciate the logical specificity (not that anyone really cares).

---

What is you definition of "moron"?

Does it mean exceptionally intelligent?

Literally nothing in his above post was specific.

He didnt reference a single case.

I just check Fuller wiki and he actually ruled the exact opposite in Downes v Bidwell where they found people from newly conquered territories were not citizens and consitutional rights did not apply to them.

Makes me think he lazily got this from chat gpt or grok.

---

Downes dealt with unincorporated territories, a totally different topic and also had a very nuanced holding around liberty and property rights of individuals. You can read it for yourself if you want (though I suspect you wont). It is not at all relevant to a person present in one of the 50 states.

The cases that establish non-citizen rights are not hard to find if you care to put any effort into looking, but the initial case I was talking about is Yamataya v. Fisher. Its still good law. At a minimum the 5th amendment applies to non-citizens.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

'Due process' does not mean 'delay as long as possible and using only the methods I like', mister.

You enter illegally...

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The very first part of any contract, and the Constitution is a contract, is definitions. It's not possible to apply a contract to people not signatory to that contract, which means it's not possible to apply rights or responsibilities to people who are not citizens.

---

Which would mean it's not possible to arrest them or charge them with a crime, since they have no responsibility to obey the law.

---

Of course it's possible to arrest criminals. And the idea that you can ignore the consequences of your actions, well, we see where that goes.

Silly you would think otherwise.

Or would you prefer we treat them as invaders, or combatants?

---

I prefer to treat them as persons subject to the law, which brings both rights and responsibilities...and that's exactly what we do. Silly to think otherwise.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The very first part of any contract, and the Constitution is a contract, is definitions. It's not possible to apply a contract to people not signatory to that contract, which means it's not possible to apply rights or responsibilities to people who are not citizens.

---

Which would mean it's not possible to arrest them or charge them with a crime, since they have no responsibility to obey the law.

---

Of course it's possible to arrest criminals. And the idea that you can ignore the consequences of your actions, well, we see where that goes.

Silly you would think otherwise.

Or would you prefer we treat them as invaders, or combatants?

---

I prefer to treat them as persons subject to the law, which brings both rights and responsibilities...and that's exactly what we do. Silly to think otherwise.

---

So in your world there is no value to becoming a citizen. After all, you give illegals all the rights a citizen has, and if you don't like the law, just ignore it, and Sam and the Left will attack the cops for interfering with you.

Not how this works, buddy.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The very first part of any contract, and the Constitution is a contract, is definitions. It's not possible to apply a contract to people not signatory to that contract, which means it's not possible to apply rights or responsibilities to people who are not citizens.

---

Which would mean it's not possible to arrest them or charge them with a crime, since they have no responsibility to obey the law.

---

Of course it's possible to arrest criminals. And the idea that you can ignore the consequences of your actions, well, we see where that goes.

Silly you would think otherwise.

Or would you prefer we treat them as invaders, or combatants?

---

I prefer to treat them as persons subject to the law, which brings both rights and responsibilities...and that's exactly what we do. Silly to think otherwise.

---

So in your world there is no value to becoming a citizen. After all, you give illegals all the rights a citizen has, and if you don't like the law, just ignore it, and Sam and the Left will attack the cops for interfering with you.

Not how this works, buddy.

---

Of course illegals don't have all the rights of a citizen. But they do have some rights.

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

303Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

303Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

303Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

303Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

303Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

303Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

That Truth Social post from Trump is good to see. That should help to turn the temperature down.

Senior Trump official bungled the admin response to Pretti’s tragic death this weekend — but POTUS knows politics, sees the writing on wall & and is clearly stepping in to try to right the ship quickly.

In the past 15 hrs, POTUS has:

>declined to defend the agent who killed… https://t.co/GbWPjMgrs8

— Rachael Bade (@rachaelmbade) January 26, 2026

---

This white ***** is reading things into his post.... but she brings up a interesting point. Trump needs to stand behind the officer involved in this shooting. If they sacrifice another officer to the communists to cleanse themselves of any blame then I and many others will sit out the midterms. Republicans need to support our ICE officers the way the left supports their domestic terrorists and antifa foot soldiers.

---

Way to start from a position of reasoned sexism.

So do the same thing that former presidents (Obama with the "acted stupidly" comments, as a singular example) did, but in a way you support, despite the pendency of any investigation or any evidence to the contrary.

Can you provide any actual evidence of the deceased being part of any domestic terrorist cell or a member of antifa?

If investigating and possibly holding ICE officers who pursued three people across a street, pushed two of them to the ground (both women - I thought defense of women was a big thing on the right the last few years) then shot another US citizen 5+ times (i have seen the number be high as 10, but I have not seen it confirmed how many rounds actually hit his body) accountable is a " sacrifice [of] another officer to the communists" then we might as well pack it up and all give up on governmental accountability at any level.

For the record, I dont think Derek Chauvin should have been convicted, so I look forward to addressing a different irrelevant deflection you will undoubtedly raise.

---

I'm more concerned with Somalia Gangster accountability right now and the billions in fraud that the American tax payer is expected to pay for.

The guy was a cancer to this nation and I'm happy he's dead. I'm going to pretend like everyone else on this board that it is a shame that my enemy, who wouldn't give a **** about myself or my family getting robbed or murdered by illegal criminals, got shot and killed for provoking, harassing, and physically assaulting ICE officers.

---

What does welfare fraud have to do with the ICE operations in MN? Most of the names I have seen of those arrested are Hispanic with very few Somali's here and there. Is ICE required to investigate the fraud? Why even bring that up in this discussion? Welfare fraud can be bad (it is, its rampant and needs to be curbed) and other things can still be true.

Sad you are happy another person is dead just because he didn't agree with your politics on a singular issue (and maybe he did generally agree, just not with the current federal approach to arresting illegals (and a few hundred/thousand citizens without warrant or basis - but what are constitutional violations if I like the policy and optics)). Seems like you have a very binary and non-critical view of the situation. Thats too bad.

---

Welfare fraud has everything to do here because it has been reported many of those doing the fraud are not citizens.

Non citizens don't get constitutional rights.

---

The bolded is just factually and legally incorrect.

---

No it is factually correct and legally correct.

Otherwise why are we not running all over the world to arrest those who are violating our constitution???

Because the constitution only applies to citizens.

---

Not sure what is more shocking; that you somehow managed to be more wrong the second time, or that someone actually starred this post.

---

And yet you can't seem to answer a question but instead go off on a tangent.

---

You could google it but I am happy to oblige for the sake of I have nothing better to do with my time.

1. The Constitution applies to non-citizens generally. This was first established in 1903 under the Fuller court. Far from some radical, Melville Fuller was quite conservative and his court was far from activist. This general notion has been affirmed and expanded by numerous SCOTUS decisions over the years and has not been seriously challenged ever to my knowledge. There are certain limitations, but everyone in the US gets general civil rights under our constitution, even those here illegally.

2. We dont police the world because we lack generally lack jurisdiction outside of our borders (with the exception of crimes against the US, and the apprehension of individuals with active federal arrest warrants - this is the basis the admin is going with for calling the capture of Maduro legal, we will see where that goes but based on existing precedent, they are probably right).

---

Compared to a lot of the morons on here, I really appreciate your posts although I may not always agree with you politically. I appreciate the logical specificity (not that anyone really cares).

---

What is you definition of "moron"?

Does it mean exceptionally intelligent?

Literally nothing in his above post was specific.

He didnt reference a single case.

I just check Fuller wiki and he actually ruled the exact opposite in Downes v Bidwell where they found people from newly conquered territories were not citizens and consitutional rights did not apply to them.

Makes me think he lazily got this from chat gpt or grok.

---

Downes dealt with unincorporated territories, a totally different topic and also had a very nuanced holding around liberty and property rights of individuals. You can read it for yourself if you want (though I suspect you wont). It is not at all relevant to a person present in one of the 50 states.

The cases that establish non-citizen rights are not hard to find if you care to put any effort into looking, but the initial case I was talking about is Yamataya v. Fisher. Its still good law. At a minimum the 5th amendment applies to non-citizens.

---

It's not my job pull data that supports your argument. That onus is generally on the person making the argument.

At least you provided something specific but it doesn't dispute my original point that these are bad (unconstitutional) laws being created by judicial over-reach.

That is the problem with activist judges. They create case law as they would like it to be rather than interpreting the law the way the founders wrote and intended it to be.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I noticed you can only squirm and evade.

So Walz of you.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oh, we both know I focused on the heart of the issue.

You, for your own reasons, want to hide from that and lie about it.

Not my idea of a good argument, but you do you.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The lie is pretending there is not a massive, organized effort to interfere and harass federal deportation work.

---

NOW: ARRESTS of Anti-ICE Protesters after Police declare an unlawful assembly outside of the Springhill Suites Hotel in Maple Grove Minnesota pic.twitter.com/01BNLawnO2

— Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 (@ScooterCasterNY) January 27, 2026

ShooterTX said:

---

The theory is that the SIG discharged while it was being removed, and the cop thought it was fired by the criminal, so he shot back.
It makes a lot of sense.

---

Federal agents are drinking beers in the window of the hotel anti-ICE protesters are at tonight in Minnesota

pic.twitter.com/scg5QL3bSH

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) January 27, 2026

ShooterTX said:

---

I just read something very interesting.

It appears that the gun he was carrying was a SIG P320. This gun has become famous for a very bad reason. The gun can accidentally discharge without pulling the trigger.
After watching the videos again, it appears that there is a shot fired and a small gap of time before the cop began shooting.
The theory is that the SIG discharged while it was being removed, and the cop thought it was fired by the criminal, so he shot back.
It makes a lot of sense. There is a struggle and one of the cops yells "gun! Gun! Gun!", and then a shot is fired (accidental discharge) followed by the cop shooting the suspect because he thought the suspect had fired his weapon.

The body cam footage is going to be very interesting.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

The theory is that the SIG discharged while it was being removed, and the cop thought it was fired by the criminal, so he shot back.
It makes a lot of sense.

---

Except that Pretti was immobilized, with both palms on the pavement, and the officer who drew his gun had just watched another officer disarm him.

---

ShooterTX said:

---

I just read something very interesting.

It appears that the gun he was carrying was a SIG P320. This gun has become famous for a very bad reason. The gun can accidentally discharge without pulling the trigger.
After watching the videos again, it appears that there is a shot fired and a small gap of time before the cop began shooting.
The theory is that the SIG discharged while it was being removed, and the cop thought it was fired by the criminal, so he shot back.
It makes a lot of sense. There is a struggle and one of the cops yells "gun! Gun! Gun!", and then a shot is fired (accidental discharge) followed by the cop shooting the suspect because he thought the suspect had fired his weapon.

The body cam footage is going to be very interesting.

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

The theory is that the SIG discharged while it was being removed, and the cop thought it was fired by the criminal, so he shot back.
It makes a lot of sense.

---

Except that Pretti was immobilized, with both palms on the pavement, and the officer who drew his gun had just watched another officer disarm him.

---

There is some doubt about whether the first officer who shot saw the weapon being removed. However, there is no doubt he could clearly see that Pretti was subdued with his hands nowhere near his weapon. It seems he panicked. He had just turned from beating up the woman whom Pretti had tried to protect, so he really didn't know what was going on.

Then, other officers pumped at least six more rounds in him while he was prone on the ground, motionless.

He died with his cell phone and his glasses in his hands.

Best video breakdown I've seen:

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000010668660/new-video-analysis-reveals-flawed-and-fatal-decisions-in-shooting-of-pretti.html?smid=url-share

For many years to come, this will be a teaching tool of how poorly trained officers can screw up with deadly results.

---