BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

If this is real and not AI, then the story is going to fizzle

New footage shows that Alex Pretti was a menace to society who previously vandalized an ICE vehicle in an attempt to escalate violence with agents.

Color me shocked pic.twitter.com/k4eQWQVb6F

— Savanah Hernandez (@Savsays) January 28, 2026

---

What a sweetheart, "the perfect guy," "the kind of guy you'd want your daughter to marry," I was told over the last few days.

Indeed, he is. I'd love to have one of my daughters bring home an unemployed protester who follows around LEO screaming like a banshee and kicking out taillights. No doubt he's a peach in all facets of his life. Imagine the excitement at Thanksgiving and the joy of having grandchildren who are taught the organized protestor lifestyle.

---

So shoot him dead in the street.

Arrest hin, but him in jail for 60 days. Fine him. Kill him?

What moral code were you raised with?

---

He was basically playing in freeway traffic and go hit, now you're trying to blame the car that hit him for his death.

---

You really believe if you hit someone on the freeway you won't be getting a visit from the Police?

How about you hit them, argue with the Police and they shoot you...

I really do not know what world you guys live in.

---

We live in world where low iq people believe they have the right to attack federal agents while brandishing a firearm.

---

It was holstered and he was tackled by 5 guys. The idiot should have been arrested, no doubt. If not the day he died, 11 days earlier. They should have cuffed him and brought him in. Perfectly reasonable. Even macing him, brought it on himself. Deadly force? On a City Street with civilians around? 10 times? Come on, no reasonable person can think that is warranted in a law enforcement situation. Hell, if you did that in Afghanistan CID would be visiting.

Homan got it under control and took the appropriate actions. Can we put him in charge of HSA? Make that guy a Cabinet member.

---

He really should have been arrested 11 days earlier. His actions deserved some time incarcerated.
Not sure why they just threw him aside and then left him alone.

His actions the day he died were much more subdued, almost as though he recalibrated his actions.
He was moving off the road and came to the aid of a woman who was slung around like a rag doll, he was attacked from the back, he was wrested to the ground and after his holstered, not brandished, gun was ripped out of the back of his belt, he was summarily shot at 10 times, with many of the shots landing.

He was certainly a jerk and an ass. His actions in the earlier video were undefendable and deserved an arrest.

Nothing he did however on the day he died deserved death, or even close to it.

He wasn't the sweet little guy that he was portrayed to be at all. He still should not have been killed, the response the day he was killed far exceeded his actions.

---

This isn't about Pretti "deserving" death. It's dishonest for people to keep misframing it that way. Pretti gambled with his life with his actions, and even still, despite everything we know about him - his prior violent assault on officers, his active impedance, his resisting arrest, and most notably, him doing all this while carrying a loaded weapon - STILL, had his weapon not spontaneously discharged (ostensibly - the investigation is ongoing) the officers would most likely not have shot him, and he'd be alive today.

Pretti was a victim of his own bad choices that culminated in being in a position where he was going to get killed if just ONE thing went wrong. It did. And unfortunately, it was something that was not his nor the officers' fault or within their control.

---

His weapon was taken from him while still holstered. If it discharged, it discharged in the hands of the Federal Agent. It was not Pertti having the weapon that caused the discharge. It was the officers tackling him and taking from his holster.

That is neither here nor there, the investigation will show that as it is on tape. The issue is the orders the Federal Agents were operating under when interacting with protestors on US streets. Aggression begets Aggression. The full tactical, the masks (for whatever reason), the use of tear gas, the picking up people on the streets (non-targeted enforcement)...

That is what caused the problem, not that everyone didn't get on their knees and interlock their fingers on their head when addressing ICE to make sure they wouldn't be shot...

---

It makes no difference in whose hands the weapon was in while it spontaneously discharged. The fact remains that if it did indeed discharge by itself, and the other officers had no idea where the weapon was and only saw that it was gone from Pretti's holster - then, as highly, highly unlucky that was for Pretti, the officers had the right in that split second to decide that their lives were in danger and assume that it was Pretti who had fired the shot. Again, very, very unlucky for Pretti that it had happened. But it was Pretti who very unwisely decided to carry a weapon while he was assaulting officers, to where all it would take is for ONE very unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time for him to get shot by the officers. And incredibly, that one thing actually happened. If anything, Pretti was killed due to an act of God, sort of speak.

To blame what happened to Pretti on ICE policy and tactics is dishonest and/or ignorant and ideologically driven. It didn't matter what the policy was, who was enforcing it, or what the tactics were. If this were ANY police engagement of an armed protester - (you can insert whatever protest you want here, it doesn't matter) - and the gun the resisting protester was carrying went off in the chaos of wrestling with cops , then there's a near 99% chance they're going to get shot by the cops. This is just the reality of such a situation. Cops want to go home alive too. Argue against ICE policy and tactics all you want, but using Pretti getting shot as evidence of its failure is not being fair and honest, it's being ideologically opportunistic. "Don't let a crisis go to waste" is what democrats live by, and it's nauseating how many sheep they're able to manipulate this way.

---

Keep in mind, it's facts and reason and mathematical probability versus his imagination.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

If this is real and not AI, then the story is going to fizzle

New footage shows that Alex Pretti was a menace to society who previously vandalized an ICE vehicle in an attempt to escalate violence with agents.

Color me shocked pic.twitter.com/k4eQWQVb6F

— Savanah Hernandez (@Savsays) January 28, 2026

---

What a sweetheart, "the perfect guy," "the kind of guy you'd want your daughter to marry," I was told over the last few days.

Indeed, he is. I'd love to have one of my daughters bring home an unemployed protester who follows around LEO screaming like a banshee and kicking out taillights. No doubt he's a peach in all facets of his life. Imagine the excitement at Thanksgiving and the joy of having grandchildren who are taught the organized protestor lifestyle.

---

So shoot him dead in the street.

Arrest hin, but him in jail for 60 days. Fine him. Kill him?

What moral code were you raised with?

---

He was basically playing in freeway traffic and go hit, now you're trying to blame the car that hit him for his death.

---

You really believe if you hit someone on the freeway you won't be getting a visit from the Police?

How about you hit them, argue with the Police and they shoot you...

I really do not know what world you guys live in.

---

We live in world where low iq people believe they have the right to attack federal agents while brandishing a firearm.

---

It was holstered and he was tackled by 5 guys. The idiot should have been arrested, no doubt. If not the day he died, 11 days earlier. They should have cuffed him and brought him in. Perfectly reasonable. Even macing him, brought it on himself. Deadly force? On a City Street with civilians around? 10 times? Come on, no reasonable person can think that is warranted in a law enforcement situation. Hell, if you did that in Afghanistan CID would be visiting.

Homan got it under control and took the appropriate actions. Can we put him in charge of HSA? Make that guy a Cabinet member.

---

He really should have been arrested 11 days earlier. His actions deserved some time incarcerated.
Not sure why they just threw him aside and then left him alone.

His actions the day he died were much more subdued, almost as though he recalibrated his actions.
He was moving off the road and came to the aid of a woman who was slung around like a rag doll, he was attacked from the back, he was wrested to the ground and after his holstered, not brandished, gun was ripped out of the back of his belt, he was summarily shot at 10 times, with many of the shots landing.

He was certainly a jerk and an ass. His actions in the earlier video were undefendable and deserved an arrest.

Nothing he did however on the day he died deserved death, or even close to it.

He wasn't the sweet little guy that he was portrayed to be at all. He still should not have been killed, the response the day he was killed far exceeded his actions.

---

This isn't about Pretti "deserving" death. It's dishonest for people to keep misframing it that way. Pretti gambled with his life with his actions, and even still, despite everything we know about him - his prior violent assault on officers, his active impedance, his resisting arrest, and most notably, him doing all this while carrying a loaded weapon - STILL, had his weapon not spontaneously discharged (ostensibly - the investigation is ongoing) the officers would most likely not have shot him, and he'd be alive today.

Pretti was a victim of his own bad choices that culminated in being in a position where he was going to get killed if just ONE thing went wrong. It did. And unfortunately, it was something that was not his nor the officers' fault or within their control.

---

His weapon was taken from him while still holstered. If it discharged, it discharged in the hands of the Federal Agent. It was not Pertti having the weapon that caused the discharge. It was the officers tackling him and taking from his holster.

That is neither here nor there, the investigation will show that as it is on tape. The issue is the orders the Federal Agents were operating under when interacting with protestors on US streets. Aggression begets Aggression. The full tactical, the masks (for whatever reason), the use of tear gas, the picking up people on the streets (non-targeted enforcement)...

That is what caused the problem, not that everyone didn't get on their knees and interlock their fingers on their head when addressing ICE to make sure they wouldn't be shot...

---

It makes no difference in whose hands the weapon was in while it spontaneously discharged. The fact remains that if it did indeed discharge by itself, and the other officers had no idea where the weapon was and only saw that it was gone from Pretti's holster - then, as highly, highly unlucky that was for Pretti, the officers had the right in that split second to decide that their lives were in danger and assume that it was Pretti who had fired the shot. Again, very, very unlucky for Pretti that it had happened. But it was Pretti who very unwisely decided to carry a weapon while he was assaulting officers, to where all it would take is for ONE very unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time for him to get shot by the officers. And incredibly, that one thing actually happened. If anything, Pretti was killed due to an act of God, sort of speak.

To blame what happened to Pretti on ICE policy and tactics is dishonest and/or ignorant and ideologically driven. It didn't matter what the policy was, who was enforcing it, or what the tactics were. If this were ANY police engagement of an armed protester - (you can insert whatever protest you want here, it doesn't matter) - and the gun the resisting protester was carrying went off in the chaos of wrestling with cops , then there's a near 99% chance they're going to get shot by the cops. This is just the reality of such a situation. Cops want to go home alive too. Argue against ICE policy and tactics all you want, but using Pretti getting shot as evidence of its failure is not being fair and honest, it's being ideologically opportunistic. "Don't let a crisis go to waste" is what democrats live by, and it's nauseating how many sheep they're able to manipulate this way.

---

To say that any protest with any Law Enforcement would have ended up with him dead shot 10 times is incredibly ignorant.

---

No, what's incredibly ignorant is having an incredibly simple point fly completely over your head.

You have an uncanny habit of miscomprehension and misframing things in order for the square peg of reality to get forced into your ideological circle.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

If this is real and not AI, then the story is going to fizzle

New footage shows that Alex Pretti was a menace to society who previously vandalized an ICE vehicle in an attempt to escalate violence with agents.

Color me shocked pic.twitter.com/k4eQWQVb6F

— Savanah Hernandez (@Savsays) January 28, 2026

---

What a sweetheart, "the perfect guy," "the kind of guy you'd want your daughter to marry," I was told over the last few days.

Indeed, he is. I'd love to have one of my daughters bring home an unemployed protester who follows around LEO screaming like a banshee and kicking out taillights. No doubt he's a peach in all facets of his life. Imagine the excitement at Thanksgiving and the joy of having grandchildren who are taught the organized protestor lifestyle.

---

So shoot him dead in the street.

Arrest hin, but him in jail for 60 days. Fine him. Kill him?

What moral code were you raised with?

---

He was basically playing in freeway traffic and go hit, now you're trying to blame the car that hit him for his death.

---

You really believe if you hit someone on the freeway you won't be getting a visit from the Police?

How about you hit them, argue with the Police and they shoot you...

I really do not know what world you guys live in.

---

We live in world where low iq people believe they have the right to attack federal agents while brandishing a firearm.

---

It was holstered and he was tackled by 5 guys. The idiot should have been arrested, no doubt. If not the day he died, 11 days earlier. They should have cuffed him and brought him in. Perfectly reasonable. Even macing him, brought it on himself. Deadly force? On a City Street with civilians around? 10 times? Come on, no reasonable person can think that is warranted in a law enforcement situation. Hell, if you did that in Afghanistan CID would be visiting.

Homan got it under control and took the appropriate actions. Can we put him in charge of HSA? Make that guy a Cabinet member.

---

He really should have been arrested 11 days earlier. His actions deserved some time incarcerated.
Not sure why they just threw him aside and then left him alone.

His actions the day he died were much more subdued, almost as though he recalibrated his actions.
He was moving off the road and came to the aid of a woman who was slung around like a rag doll, he was attacked from the back, he was wrested to the ground and after his holstered, not brandished, gun was ripped out of the back of his belt, he was summarily shot at 10 times, with many of the shots landing.

He was certainly a jerk and an ass. His actions in the earlier video were undefendable and deserved an arrest.

Nothing he did however on the day he died deserved death, or even close to it.

He wasn't the sweet little guy that he was portrayed to be at all. He still should not have been killed, the response the day he was killed far exceeded his actions.

---

This isn't about Pretti "deserving" death. It's dishonest for people to keep misframing it that way. Pretti gambled with his life with his actions, and even still, despite everything we know about him - his prior violent assault on officers, his active impedance, his resisting arrest, and most notably, him doing all this while carrying a loaded weapon - STILL, had his weapon not spontaneously discharged (ostensibly - the investigation is ongoing) the officers would most likely not have shot him, and he'd be alive today.

Pretti was a victim of his own bad choices that culminated in being in a position where he was going to get killed if just ONE thing went wrong. It did. And unfortunately, it was something that was not his nor the officers' fault or within their control.

---

His weapon was taken from him while still holstered. If it discharged, it discharged in the hands of the Federal Agent. It was not Pertti having the weapon that caused the discharge. It was the officers tackling him and taking from his holster.

That is neither here nor there, the investigation will show that as it is on tape. The issue is the orders the Federal Agents were operating under when interacting with protestors on US streets. Aggression begets Aggression. The full tactical, the masks (for whatever reason), the use of tear gas, the picking up people on the streets (non-targeted enforcement)...

That is what caused the problem, not that everyone didn't get on their knees and interlock their fingers on their head when addressing ICE to make sure they wouldn't be shot...

---

It makes no difference in whose hands the weapon was in while it spontaneously discharged. The fact remains that if it did indeed discharge by itself, and the other officers had no idea where the weapon was and only saw that it was gone from Pretti's holster - then, as highly, highly unlucky that was for Pretti, the officers had the right in that split second to decide that their lives were in danger and assume that it was Pretti who had fired the shot. Again, very, very unlucky for Pretti that it had happened. But it was Pretti who very unwisely decided to carry a weapon while he was assaulting officers, to where all it would take is for ONE very unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time for him to get shot by the officers. And incredibly, that one thing actually happened. If anything, Pretti was killed due to an act of God, sort of speak.

To blame what happened to Pretti on ICE policy and tactics is dishonest and/or ignorant and ideologically driven. It didn't matter what the policy was, who was enforcing it, or what the tactics were. If this were ANY police engagement of an armed protester - (you can insert whatever protest you want here, it doesn't matter) - and the gun the resisting protester was carrying went off in the chaos of wrestling with cops , then there's a near 99% chance they're going to get shot by the cops. This is just the reality of such a situation. Cops want to go home alive too. Argue against ICE policy and tactics all you want, but using Pretti getting shot as evidence of its failure is not being fair and honest, it's being ideologically opportunistic. "Don't let a crisis go to waste" is what democrats live by, and it's nauseating how many sheep they're able to manipulate this way.

---

To say that any protest with any Law Enforcement would have ended up with him dead shot 10 times is incredibly ignorant.

---

No, what's incredibly ignorant is having an incredibly simple point fly completely over your head.

You have an uncanny habit of miscomprehension and misframing things in order for the square peg of reality to get forced into your ideological circle.

---

This is good. I am saying every situation and agency is different. He is saying it all the same. One Agent could have changed the trajectory of that situation.

I am saying the Federal Government doesn't have the right to shoot you in the street 10 times with impunity. He is saying bringing a legal conceal carry weapon is justification for the Federal Government to shoot you. And I am the ideolog? The Far Right on this site are the object ones? Got you...

Sam Lowry said:

---

GOP Senator Rand Paul: "When people watch that video and the government tells them, 'Well, he was assaulting the police officers,' nobody with any objectivity believes that's what's happening."

---

I think an intelligent person might be able to deduce that those government officials might have actually been talking about the ENTIRETY of the officers' encounter with Pretti, which the officers reported to them, and not just that first video. Their report included Pretti's assault on the officers that the public was only made privy to upon release of the later video.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

If this is real and not AI, then the story is going to fizzle

New footage shows that Alex Pretti was a menace to society who previously vandalized an ICE vehicle in an attempt to escalate violence with agents.

Color me shocked pic.twitter.com/k4eQWQVb6F

— Savanah Hernandez (@Savsays) January 28, 2026

---

What a sweetheart, "the perfect guy," "the kind of guy you'd want your daughter to marry," I was told over the last few days.

Indeed, he is. I'd love to have one of my daughters bring home an unemployed protester who follows around LEO screaming like a banshee and kicking out taillights. No doubt he's a peach in all facets of his life. Imagine the excitement at Thanksgiving and the joy of having grandchildren who are taught the organized protestor lifestyle.

---

So shoot him dead in the street.

Arrest hin, but him in jail for 60 days. Fine him. Kill him?

What moral code were you raised with?

---

He was basically playing in freeway traffic and go hit, now you're trying to blame the car that hit him for his death.

---

You really believe if you hit someone on the freeway you won't be getting a visit from the Police?

How about you hit them, argue with the Police and they shoot you...

I really do not know what world you guys live in.

---

We live in world where low iq people believe they have the right to attack federal agents while brandishing a firearm.

---

It was holstered and he was tackled by 5 guys. The idiot should have been arrested, no doubt. If not the day he died, 11 days earlier. They should have cuffed him and brought him in. Perfectly reasonable. Even macing him, brought it on himself. Deadly force? On a City Street with civilians around? 10 times? Come on, no reasonable person can think that is warranted in a law enforcement situation. Hell, if you did that in Afghanistan CID would be visiting.

Homan got it under control and took the appropriate actions. Can we put him in charge of HSA? Make that guy a Cabinet member.

---

He really should have been arrested 11 days earlier. His actions deserved some time incarcerated.
Not sure why they just threw him aside and then left him alone.

His actions the day he died were much more subdued, almost as though he recalibrated his actions.
He was moving off the road and came to the aid of a woman who was slung around like a rag doll, he was attacked from the back, he was wrested to the ground and after his holstered, not brandished, gun was ripped out of the back of his belt, he was summarily shot at 10 times, with many of the shots landing.

He was certainly a jerk and an ass. His actions in the earlier video were undefendable and deserved an arrest.

Nothing he did however on the day he died deserved death, or even close to it.

He wasn't the sweet little guy that he was portrayed to be at all. He still should not have been killed, the response the day he was killed far exceeded his actions.

---

This isn't about Pretti "deserving" death. It's dishonest for people to keep misframing it that way. Pretti gambled with his life with his actions, and even still, despite everything we know about him - his prior violent assault on officers, his active impedance, his resisting arrest, and most notably, him doing all this while carrying a loaded weapon - STILL, had his weapon not spontaneously discharged (ostensibly - the investigation is ongoing) the officers would most likely not have shot him, and he'd be alive today.

Pretti was a victim of his own bad choices that culminated in being in a position where he was going to get killed if just ONE thing went wrong. It did. And unfortunately, it was something that was not his nor the officers' fault or within their control.

---

His weapon was taken from him while still holstered. If it discharged, it discharged in the hands of the Federal Agent. It was not Pertti having the weapon that caused the discharge. It was the officers tackling him and taking from his holster.

That is neither here nor there, the investigation will show that as it is on tape. The issue is the orders the Federal Agents were operating under when interacting with protestors on US streets. Aggression begets Aggression. The full tactical, the masks (for whatever reason), the use of tear gas, the picking up people on the streets (non-targeted enforcement)...

That is what caused the problem, not that everyone didn't get on their knees and interlock their fingers on their head when addressing ICE to make sure they wouldn't be shot...

---

It makes no difference in whose hands the weapon was in while it spontaneously discharged. The fact remains that if it did indeed discharge by itself, and the other officers had no idea where the weapon was and only saw that it was gone from Pretti's holster - then, as highly, highly unlucky that was for Pretti, the officers had the right in that split second to decide that their lives were in danger and assume that it was Pretti who had fired the shot. Again, very, very unlucky for Pretti that it had happened. But it was Pretti who very unwisely decided to carry a weapon while he was assaulting officers, to where all it would take is for ONE very unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time for him to get shot by the officers. And incredibly, that one thing actually happened. If anything, Pretti was killed due to an act of God, sort of speak.

To blame what happened to Pretti on ICE policy and tactics is dishonest and/or ignorant and ideologically driven. It didn't matter what the policy was, who was enforcing it, or what the tactics were. If this were ANY police engagement of an armed protester - (you can insert whatever protest you want here, it doesn't matter) - and the gun the resisting protester was carrying went off in the chaos of wrestling with cops , then there's a near 99% chance they're going to get shot by the cops. This is just the reality of such a situation. Cops want to go home alive too. Argue against ICE policy and tactics all you want, but using Pretti getting shot as evidence of its failure is not being fair and honest, it's being ideologically opportunistic. "Don't let a crisis go to waste" is what democrats live by, and it's nauseating how many sheep they're able to manipulate this way.

---

To say that any protest with any Law Enforcement would have ended up with him dead shot 10 times is incredibly ignorant.

---

No, what's incredibly ignorant is having an incredibly simple point fly completely over your head.

You have an uncanny habit of miscomprehension and misframing things in order for the square peg of reality to get forced into your ideological circle.

---

This is good. I am saying every situation and agency is different. He is saying it all the same. One Agent could have changed the trajectory of that situation.

I am saying the Federal Government doesn't have the right to shoot you in the street 10 times with impunity. He is saying bringing a legal conceal carry weapon is justification for the Federal Government to shoot you. And I am the ideolog? The Far Right on this site are the object ones? Got you...

---

I only respond to comments that make rational sense.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GOP Senator Rand Paul: "When people watch that video and the government tells them, 'Well, he was assaulting the police officers,' nobody with any objectivity believes that's what's happening."

---

I think an intelligent person might be able to deduce that those government officials might have actually been talking about the ENTIRETY of the officers' encounter with Pretti, which the officers reported to them, and not just that first video. Their report included Pretti's assault on the officers that the public was only made privy to upon release of the later video.

---

So you'd agree that he wasn't assaulting police officers in the video where he was shot?

BUDOS said:

---

I don't totally disagree with you; however your primary perception of the protests as a whole is different than what I and most others believe.
Do you believe Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act?

---

I would love to see some data to back that up.

In fairness, there are a lot of American who- believe:
- Trump banned Muslims
- Florida banned saying "gay"
- Michael Brown said "hands up, don't shoot"
- George Floyd was an saint
- Juicy Smalls was attacked by Trump supports at Subway
- Border Patrol agents whipped Haitian migrants
- Tens of thousands of unarmed black men are killed by police each year
- The 2016 election was stolen by Russian hackers

Here is a specific question for you: not sure what you do for a living, but regardless: if a mob of people followed you, blew whistles near you, spit in your face, kicked your equipment, constantly yelled profanities at you ... would you consider that a "protest" or interference?

I look forward to your answer.

Sam Lowry said:

---

GOP Senator Rand Paul: "When people watch that video and the government tells them, 'Well, he was assaulting the police officers,' nobody with any objectivity believes that's what's happening."

---

I think you purport to be an attorney.

Protip: looking the definition of "assault" in Black's.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GOP Senator Rand Paul: "When people watch that video and the government tells them, 'Well, he was assaulting the police officers,' nobody with any objectivity believes that's what's happening."

---

I think you purport to be an attorney.

Protip: looking the definition of "assault" in Black's.

---

Sam acts like he's watched a lot of Law & Order, and thinks he can sell himself as an attorney.

Hey, it sort of worked for Shatner in Boston Legal, so maybe there's a producer interested in making Somali Sam into a crime drama.

another poor lost soul - invaginated into the soulless gaping maw of radical liberalism......

pathetic.

- UF

... and masticated by the machinationeenery promulgated by Herr Tim Walz.

D!

Suelten los perros economicas, Citoyens!!

{ eating Cowboy Cookies }

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GOP Senator Rand Paul: "When people watch that video and the government tells them, 'Well, he was assaulting the police officers,' nobody with any objectivity believes that's what's happening."

---

I think an intelligent person might be able to deduce that those government officials might have actually been talking about the ENTIRETY of the officers' encounter with Pretti, which the officers reported to them, and not just that first video. Their report included Pretti's assault on the officers that the public was only made privy to upon release of the later video.

---

So you'd agree that he wasn't assaulting police officers in the video where he was shot?

---

Yes, I'd agree, not in that video. I never said he did. What it did show was that he was impeding officers and resisting arrest.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GOP Senator Rand Paul: "When people watch that video and the government tells them, 'Well, he was assaulting the police officers,' nobody with any objectivity believes that's what's happening."

---

I think an intelligent person might be able to deduce that those government officials might have actually been talking about the ENTIRETY of the officers' encounter with Pretti, which the officers reported to them, and not just that first video. Their report included Pretti's assault on the officers that the public was only made privy to upon release of the later video.

---

So you'd agree that he wasn't assaulting police officers in the video where he was shot?

---

Yes, I'd agree, not in that video. I never said he did. What it did show was that he was impeding officers and resisting arrest.

---

So this isn't really true:

Quote:

---

Again, very, very unlucky for Pretti that it had happened. But it was Pretti who very unwisely decided to carry a weapon while he was assaulting officers, to where all it would take is for ONE very unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time for him to get shot by the officers. And incredibly, that one thing actually happened. If anything, Pretti was killed due to an act of God, sort of speak.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GOP Senator Rand Paul: "When people watch that video and the government tells them, 'Well, he was assaulting the police officers,' nobody with any objectivity believes that's what's happening."

---

I think an intelligent person might be able to deduce that those government officials might have actually been talking about the ENTIRETY of the officers' encounter with Pretti, which the officers reported to them, and not just that first video. Their report included Pretti's assault on the officers that the public was only made privy to upon release of the later video.

---

So you'd agree that he wasn't assaulting police officers in the video where he was shot?

---

Yes, I'd agree, not in that video. I never said he did. What it did show was that he was impeding officers and resisting arrest.

---

So this isn't really true:

Quote:

---

Again, very, very unlucky for Pretti that it had happened. But it was Pretti who very unwisely decided to carry a weapon while he was assaulting officers, to where all it would take is for ONE very unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time for him to get shot by the officers. And incredibly, that one thing actually happened. If anything, Pretti was killed due to an act of God, sort of speak.

---

---

I was obviously referring to Pretti's entire interaction with the officers during his protests, which encompasses his previous and undeniable assault on the officers while carrying - which the officers in the later, fatal encounter already knew about either because they were the very ones he had assaulted, or because they were passed the info. The second altercation Pretti had with the officers can be seen as a continuation of his first. The cops take into account the entire context of the situation, something that a snippet of video can not deliver.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

If this is real and not AI, then the story is going to fizzle

New footage shows that Alex Pretti was a menace to society who previously vandalized an ICE vehicle in an attempt to escalate violence with agents.

Color me shocked pic.twitter.com/k4eQWQVb6F

— Savanah Hernandez (@Savsays) January 28, 2026

---

What a sweetheart, "the perfect guy," "the kind of guy you'd want your daughter to marry," I was told over the last few days.

Indeed, he is. I'd love to have one of my daughters bring home an unemployed protester who follows around LEO screaming like a banshee and kicking out taillights. No doubt he's a peach in all facets of his life. Imagine the excitement at Thanksgiving and the joy of having grandchildren who are taught the organized protestor lifestyle.

---

So shoot him dead in the street.

Arrest hin, but him in jail for 60 days. Fine him. Kill him?

What moral code were you raised with?

---

He was basically playing in freeway traffic and go hit, now you're trying to blame the car that hit him for his death.

---

You really believe if you hit someone on the freeway you won't be getting a visit from the Police?

How about you hit them, argue with the Police and they shoot you...

I really do not know what world you guys live in.

---

the real world, unlike you.

Pretty didn't argue with the police. He fought with them. While armed. Thereby presenting a credible threat to those officers, who responded appropriately to protect themselves. All on camera, for the whole world to see..

You are as bad as those unhinged leftists.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GOP Senator Rand Paul: "When people watch that video and the government tells them, 'Well, he was assaulting the police officers,' nobody with any objectivity believes that's what's happening."

---

I think an intelligent person might be able to deduce that those government officials might have actually been talking about the ENTIRETY of the officers' encounter with Pretti, which the officers reported to them, and not just that first video. Their report included Pretti's assault on the officers that the public was only made privy to upon release of the later video.

---

So you'd agree that he wasn't assaulting police officers in the video where he was shot?

---

Yes, I'd agree, not in that video. I never said he did. What it did show was that he was impeding officers and resisting arrest.

---

So this isn't really true:

Quote:

---

Again, very, very unlucky for Pretti that it had happened. But it was Pretti who very unwisely decided to carry a weapon while he was assaulting officers, to where all it would take is for ONE very unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time for him to get shot by the officers. And incredibly, that one thing actually happened. If anything, Pretti was killed due to an act of God, sort of speak.

---

---

I was obviously referring to Pretti's entire interaction with the officers during his protests, which encompasses his previous and undeniable assault on the officers while carrying - which the officers in the later, fatal encounter already knew about either because they were the very ones he had assaulted, or because they were passed the info. The second altercation Pretti had with the officers can be seen as a continuation of his first. The cops take into account the entire context of the situation, something that a snippet of video can not deliver.

---

Hmm.

So what do you mean when you say "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time when he was assaulting officers?"

Do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the time when he was not assaulting officers?"

Or do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen during an 11-day period in which he allegedly assaulted officers?"

I don't think you can have it both ways.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

If this is real and not AI, then the story is going to fizzle

New footage shows that Alex Pretti was a menace to society who previously vandalized an ICE vehicle in an attempt to escalate violence with agents.

Color me shocked pic.twitter.com/k4eQWQVb6F

— Savanah Hernandez (@Savsays) January 28, 2026

---

What a sweetheart, "the perfect guy," "the kind of guy you'd want your daughter to marry," I was told over the last few days.

Indeed, he is. I'd love to have one of my daughters bring home an unemployed protester who follows around LEO screaming like a banshee and kicking out taillights. No doubt he's a peach in all facets of his life. Imagine the excitement at Thanksgiving and the joy of having grandchildren who are taught the organized protestor lifestyle.

---

So shoot him dead in the street.

Arrest hin, but him in jail for 60 days. Fine him. Kill him?

What moral code were you raised with?

---

He was basically playing in freeway traffic and go hit, now you're trying to blame the car that hit him for his death.

---

You really believe if you hit someone on the freeway you won't be getting a visit from the Police?

How about you hit them, argue with the Police and they shoot you...

I really do not know what world you guys live in.

---

We live in world where low iq people believe they have the right to attack federal agents while brandishing a firearm.

---

It was holstered and he was tackled by 5 guys. The idiot should have been arrested, no doubt. If not the day he died, 11 days earlier. They should have cuffed him and brought him in. Perfectly reasonable. Even macing him, brought it on himself. Deadly force? On a City Street with civilians around? 10 times? Come on, no reasonable person can think that is warranted in a law enforcement situation. Hell, if you did that in Afghanistan CID would be visiting.

Homan got it under control and took the appropriate actions. Can we put him in charge of HSA? Make that guy a Cabinet member.

---

He really should have been arrested 11 days earlier. His actions deserved some time incarcerated.
Not sure why they just threw him aside and then left him alone.

His actions the day he died were much more subdued, almost as though he recalibrated his actions.
He was moving off the road and came to the aid of a woman who was slung around like a rag doll, he was attacked from the back, he was wrested to the ground and after his holstered, not brandished, gun was ripped out of the back of his belt, he was summarily shot at 10 times, with many of the shots landing.

He was certainly a jerk and an ass. His actions in the earlier video were undefendable and deserved an arrest.

Nothing he did however on the day he died deserved death, or even close to it.

He wasn't the sweet little guy that he was portrayed to be at all. He still should not have been killed, the response the day he was killed far exceeded his actions.

---

This isn't about Pretti "deserving" death. It's dishonest for people to keep misframing it that way. Pretti gambled with his life with his actions, and even still, despite everything we know about him - his prior violent assault on officers, his active impedance, his resisting arrest, and most notably, him doing all this while carrying a loaded weapon - STILL, had his weapon not spontaneously discharged (ostensibly - the investigation is ongoing) the officers would most likely not have shot him, and he'd be alive today.

Pretti was a victim of his own bad choices that culminated in being in a position where he was going to get killed if just ONE thing went wrong. It did. And unfortunately, it was something that was not his nor the officers' fault or within their control.

---

His weapon was taken from him while still holstered. If it discharged, it discharged in the hands of the Federal Agent. It was not Pertti having the weapon that caused the discharge. It was the officers tackling him and taking from his holster.

That is neither here nor there, the investigation will show that as it is on tape. The issue is the orders the Federal Agents were operating under when interacting with protestors on US streets. Aggression begets Aggression. The full tactical, the masks (for whatever reason), the use of tear gas, the picking up people on the streets (non-targeted enforcement)...

That is what caused the problem, not that everyone didn't get on their knees and interlock their fingers on their head when addressing ICE to make sure they wouldn't be shot...

---

It makes no difference in whose hands the weapon was in while it spontaneously discharged. The fact remains that if it did indeed discharge by itself, and the other officers had no idea where the weapon was and only saw that it was gone from Pretti's holster - then, as highly, highly unlucky that was for Pretti, the officers had the right in that split second to decide that their lives were in danger and assume that it was Pretti who had fired the shot. Again, very, very unlucky for Pretti that it had happened. But it was Pretti who very unwisely decided to carry a weapon while he was assaulting officers, to where all it would take is for ONE very unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time for him to get shot by the officers. And incredibly, that one thing actually happened. If anything, Pretti was killed due to an act of God, sort of speak.

To blame what happened to Pretti on ICE policy and tactics is dishonest and/or ignorant and ideologically driven. It didn't matter what the policy was, who was enforcing it, or what the tactics were. If this were ANY police engagement of an armed protester - (you can insert whatever protest you want here, it doesn't matter) - and the gun the resisting protester was carrying went off in the chaos of wrestling with cops , then there's a near 99% chance they're going to get shot by the cops. This is just the reality of such a situation. Cops want to go home alive too. Argue against ICE policy and tactics all you want, but using Pretti getting shot as evidence of its failure is not being fair and honest, it's being ideologically opportunistic. "Don't let a crisis go to waste" is what democrats live by, and it's nauseating how many sheep they're able to manipulate this way.

---

To say that any protest with any Law Enforcement would have ended up with him dead shot 10 times is incredibly ignorant.

---

No, what's incredibly ignorant is having an incredibly simple point fly completely over your head.

You have an uncanny habit of miscomprehension and misframing things in order for the square peg of reality to get forced into your ideological circle.

---

This is good. I am saying every situation and agency is different. He is saying it all the same. One Agent could have changed the trajectory of that situation.

I am saying the Federal Government doesn't have the right to shoot you in the street 10 times with impunity. He is saying bringing a legal conceal carry weapon is justification for the Federal Government to shoot you. And I am the ideolog? The Far Right on this site are the object ones? Got you...

---

You: "He is saying bringing a legal conceal carry weapon is justification for the Federal Government to shoot you."

Look, I hate to keep beating up on you, but you keep asking for it with yet another demonstration of your continual bad habit of straw manning, miscomprehending, and/or misframing things in order to project your extremely biased view and/or to dishonestly marginalize the other person's view. Which is made worse by your utter unwillingness to incorporate new thoughts and information that might challenge it. It's the SAME thing with you on Roman Catholicism. You're a brick wall of ignorance, willful or unwillful, I really am not sure. Simply stated, you're either a pathetic liar, or you're just stuck on stupid. If this really is the reputation you want to build yourself here, then by all means keep at it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GOP Senator Rand Paul: "When people watch that video and the government tells them, 'Well, he was assaulting the police officers,' nobody with any objectivity believes that's what's happening."

---

I think an intelligent person might be able to deduce that those government officials might have actually been talking about the ENTIRETY of the officers' encounter with Pretti, which the officers reported to them, and not just that first video. Their report included Pretti's assault on the officers that the public was only made privy to upon release of the later video.

---

So you'd agree that he wasn't assaulting police officers in the video where he was shot?

---

Yes, I'd agree, not in that video. I never said he did. What it did show was that he was impeding officers and resisting arrest.

---

So this isn't really true:

Quote:

---

Again, very, very unlucky for Pretti that it had happened. But it was Pretti who very unwisely decided to carry a weapon while he was assaulting officers, to where all it would take is for ONE very unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time for him to get shot by the officers. And incredibly, that one thing actually happened. If anything, Pretti was killed due to an act of God, sort of speak.

---

---

I was obviously referring to Pretti's entire interaction with the officers during his protests, which encompasses his previous and undeniable assault on the officers while carrying - which the officers in the later, fatal encounter already knew about either because they were the very ones he had assaulted, or because they were passed the info. The second altercation Pretti had with the officers can be seen as a continuation of his first. The cops take into account the entire context of the situation, something that a snippet of video can not deliver.

---

Hmm.

So what do you mean when you say "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time when he was assaulting officers?"

Do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the time when he was not assaulting officers?"

Or do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen during an 11-day period in which he allegedly assaulted officers?"

I don't think you can have it both ways.

---

Any honest, intelligent person can surmise that I was referring to Pretti's situation as a whole, which is how law enforcement deals with people, especially known "hostiles". In Pretti's specific case, he had already declared himself a "hostile" with his prior assault on the officers, therefore they dealt with him in that context. So yes, absolutely - all it took for him to get shot in his second encounter with the officers within that context, where Pretti was clearly impeding and resisting, was the gun discharge.

Another way you can look at it is that Pretti could have been verbally assaulting the officers like he had done previously. We don't know, we aren't privy to the entire verbal exchange in that second encounter. In that sense, saying that Pretti wasn't assaulting the officers in the second encounter may not be true at all.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GOP Senator Rand Paul: "When people watch that video and the government tells them, 'Well, he was assaulting the police officers,' nobody with any objectivity believes that's what's happening."

---

I think an intelligent person might be able to deduce that those government officials might have actually been talking about the ENTIRETY of the officers' encounter with Pretti, which the officers reported to them, and not just that first video. Their report included Pretti's assault on the officers that the public was only made privy to upon release of the later video.

---

So you'd agree that he wasn't assaulting police officers in the video where he was shot?

---

Yes, I'd agree, not in that video. I never said he did. What it did show was that he was impeding officers and resisting arrest.

---

So this isn't really true:

Quote:

---

Again, very, very unlucky for Pretti that it had happened. But it was Pretti who very unwisely decided to carry a weapon while he was assaulting officers, to where all it would take is for ONE very unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time for him to get shot by the officers. And incredibly, that one thing actually happened. If anything, Pretti was killed due to an act of God, sort of speak.

---

---

I was obviously referring to Pretti's entire interaction with the officers during his protests, which encompasses his previous and undeniable assault on the officers while carrying - which the officers in the later, fatal encounter already knew about either because they were the very ones he had assaulted, or because they were passed the info. The second altercation Pretti had with the officers can be seen as a continuation of his first. The cops take into account the entire context of the situation, something that a snippet of video can not deliver.

---

Hmm.

So what do you mean when you say "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time when he was assaulting officers?"

Do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the time when he was not assaulting officers?"

Or do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen during an 11-day period in which he allegedly assaulted officers?"

I don't think you can have it both ways.

---

Any honest, intelligent person can surmise that I was referring to Pretti's situation as a whole, which is how law enforcement deals with people, especially known "hostiles". In Pretti's specific case, he had already declared himself a "hostile" with his prior assault on the officers, therefore they dealt with him in that context. So yes, absolutely - all it took for him to get shot in his second encounter with the officers within that context, where Pretti was clearly impeding and resisting, was the gun discharge.

Another way you can look at it is that Pretti could have been verbally assaulting the officers like he had done previously. We don't know, we aren't privy to the entire verbal exchange in that second encounter. In that sense, saying that Pretti wasn't assaulting the officers in the second encounter may not be true at all.

---

Do you understand that deadly force is only justified by the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm? "Imminent" doesn't mean something that happened 11 days ago.

---

Do you really think the gun discharged 11 days ago?

Something is really wrong with your cognition. I'm being serious, I'm starting to get concerned.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GOP Senator Rand Paul: "When people watch that video and the government tells them, 'Well, he was assaulting the police officers,' nobody with any objectivity believes that's what's happening."

---

I think an intelligent person might be able to deduce that those government officials might have actually been talking about the ENTIRETY of the officers' encounter with Pretti, which the officers reported to them, and not just that first video. Their report included Pretti's assault on the officers that the public was only made privy to upon release of the later video.

---

So you'd agree that he wasn't assaulting police officers in the video where he was shot?

---

Yes, I'd agree, not in that video. I never said he did. What it did show was that he was impeding officers and resisting arrest.

---

So this isn't really true:

Quote:

---

Again, very, very unlucky for Pretti that it had happened. But it was Pretti who very unwisely decided to carry a weapon while he was assaulting officers, to where all it would take is for ONE very unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time for him to get shot by the officers. And incredibly, that one thing actually happened. If anything, Pretti was killed due to an act of God, sort of speak.

---

---

I was obviously referring to Pretti's entire interaction with the officers during his protests, which encompasses his previous and undeniable assault on the officers while carrying - which the officers in the later, fatal encounter already knew about either because they were the very ones he had assaulted, or because they were passed the info. The second altercation Pretti had with the officers can be seen as a continuation of his first. The cops take into account the entire context of the situation, something that a snippet of video can not deliver.

---

Hmm.

So what do you mean when you say "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time when he was assaulting officers?"

Do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the time when he was not assaulting officers?"

Or do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen during an 11-day period in which he allegedly assaulted officers?"

I don't think you can have it both ways.

---

Any honest, intelligent person can surmise that I was referring to Pretti's situation as a whole, which is how law enforcement deals with people, especially known "hostiles". In Pretti's specific case, he had already declared himself a "hostile" with his prior assault on the officers, therefore they dealt with him in that context. So yes, absolutely - all it took for him to get shot in his second encounter with the officers within that context, where Pretti was clearly impeding and resisting, was the gun discharge.

Another way you can look at it is that Pretti could have been verbally assaulting the officers like he had done previously. We don't know, we aren't privy to the entire verbal exchange in that second encounter. In that sense, saying that Pretti wasn't assaulting the officers in the second encounter may not be true at all.

---

Do you understand that deadly force is only justified by the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm? "Imminent" doesn't mean something that happened 11 days ago.

---

Do you really think the gun discharged 11 days ago?

---

No. Do you really think that's when he got shot?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GOP Senator Rand Paul: "When people watch that video and the government tells them, 'Well, he was assaulting the police officers,' nobody with any objectivity believes that's what's happening."

---

I think an intelligent person might be able to deduce that those government officials might have actually been talking about the ENTIRETY of the officers' encounter with Pretti, which the officers reported to them, and not just that first video. Their report included Pretti's assault on the officers that the public was only made privy to upon release of the later video.

---

So you'd agree that he wasn't assaulting police officers in the video where he was shot?

---

Yes, I'd agree, not in that video. I never said he did. What it did show was that he was impeding officers and resisting arrest.

---

So this isn't really true:

Quote:

---

Again, very, very unlucky for Pretti that it had happened. But it was Pretti who very unwisely decided to carry a weapon while he was assaulting officers, to where all it would take is for ONE very unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time for him to get shot by the officers. And incredibly, that one thing actually happened. If anything, Pretti was killed due to an act of God, sort of speak.

---

---

I was obviously referring to Pretti's entire interaction with the officers during his protests, which encompasses his previous and undeniable assault on the officers while carrying - which the officers in the later, fatal encounter already knew about either because they were the very ones he had assaulted, or because they were passed the info. The second altercation Pretti had with the officers can be seen as a continuation of his first. The cops take into account the entire context of the situation, something that a snippet of video can not deliver.

---

Hmm.

So what do you mean when you say "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time when he was assaulting officers?"

Do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the time when he was not assaulting officers?"

Or do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen during an 11-day period in which he allegedly assaulted officers?"

I don't think you can have it both ways.

---

Any honest, intelligent person can surmise that I was referring to Pretti's situation as a whole, which is how law enforcement deals with people, especially known "hostiles". In Pretti's specific case, he had already declared himself a "hostile" with his prior assault on the officers, therefore they dealt with him in that context. So yes, absolutely - all it took for him to get shot in his second encounter with the officers within that context, where Pretti was clearly impeding and resisting, was the gun discharge.

Another way you can look at it is that Pretti could have been verbally assaulting the officers like he had done previously. We don't know, we aren't privy to the entire verbal exchange in that second encounter. In that sense, saying that Pretti wasn't assaulting the officers in the second encounter may not be true at all.

---

Do you understand that deadly force is only justified by the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm? "Imminent" doesn't mean something that happened 11 days ago.

---

Do you really think the gun discharged 11 days ago?

---

No. Do you really think that's when he got shot?

---

Um, seriously... you should get checked out.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GOP Senator Rand Paul: "When people watch that video and the government tells them, 'Well, he was assaulting the police officers,' nobody with any objectivity believes that's what's happening."

---

I think an intelligent person might be able to deduce that those government officials might have actually been talking about the ENTIRETY of the officers' encounter with Pretti, which the officers reported to them, and not just that first video. Their report included Pretti's assault on the officers that the public was only made privy to upon release of the later video.

---

So you'd agree that he wasn't assaulting police officers in the video where he was shot?

---

Yes, I'd agree, not in that video. I never said he did. What it did show was that he was impeding officers and resisting arrest.

---

So this isn't really true:

Quote:

---

Again, very, very unlucky for Pretti that it had happened. But it was Pretti who very unwisely decided to carry a weapon while he was assaulting officers, to where all it would take is for ONE very unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time for him to get shot by the officers. And incredibly, that one thing actually happened. If anything, Pretti was killed due to an act of God, sort of speak.

---

---

I was obviously referring to Pretti's entire interaction with the officers during his protests, which encompasses his previous and undeniable assault on the officers while carrying - which the officers in the later, fatal encounter already knew about either because they were the very ones he had assaulted, or because they were passed the info. The second altercation Pretti had with the officers can be seen as a continuation of his first. The cops take into account the entire context of the situation, something that a snippet of video can not deliver.

---

Hmm.

So what do you mean when you say "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time when he was assaulting officers?"

Do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the time when he was not assaulting officers?"

Or do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen during an 11-day period in which he allegedly assaulted officers?"

I don't think you can have it both ways.

---

Any honest, intelligent person can surmise that I was referring to Pretti's situation as a whole, which is how law enforcement deals with people, especially known "hostiles". In Pretti's specific case, he had already declared himself a "hostile" with his prior assault on the officers, therefore they dealt with him in that context. So yes, absolutely - all it took for him to get shot in his second encounter with the officers within that context, where Pretti was clearly impeding and resisting, was the gun discharge.

Another way you can look at it is that Pretti could have been verbally assaulting the officers like he had done previously. We don't know, we aren't privy to the entire verbal exchange in that second encounter. In that sense, saying that Pretti wasn't assaulting the officers in the second encounter may not be true at all.

---

Do you understand that deadly force is only justified by the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm? "Imminent" doesn't mean something that happened 11 days ago.

---

Do you really think the gun discharged 11 days ago?

---

No. Do you really think that's when he got shot?

---

Um, seriously... you should get checked out.

---

Yeah...you're trying to conflate two incidents far apart in time to spin up a justification for what happened in the moment. The law doesn't work that way.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GOP Senator Rand Paul: "When people watch that video and the government tells them, 'Well, he was assaulting the police officers,' nobody with any objectivity believes that's what's happening."

---

I think an intelligent person might be able to deduce that those government officials might have actually been talking about the ENTIRETY of the officers' encounter with Pretti, which the officers reported to them, and not just that first video. Their report included Pretti's assault on the officers that the public was only made privy to upon release of the later video.

---

So you'd agree that he wasn't assaulting police officers in the video where he was shot?

---

Yes, I'd agree, not in that video. I never said he did. What it did show was that he was impeding officers and resisting arrest.

---

So this isn't really true:

Quote:

---

Again, very, very unlucky for Pretti that it had happened. But it was Pretti who very unwisely decided to carry a weapon while he was assaulting officers, to where all it would take is for ONE very unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time for him to get shot by the officers. And incredibly, that one thing actually happened. If anything, Pretti was killed due to an act of God, sort of speak.

---

---

I was obviously referring to Pretti's entire interaction with the officers during his protests, which encompasses his previous and undeniable assault on the officers while carrying - which the officers in the later, fatal encounter already knew about either because they were the very ones he had assaulted, or because they were passed the info. The second altercation Pretti had with the officers can be seen as a continuation of his first. The cops take into account the entire context of the situation, something that a snippet of video can not deliver.

---

Hmm.

So what do you mean when you say "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time when he was assaulting officers?"

Do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the time when he was not assaulting officers?"

Or do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen during an 11-day period in which he allegedly assaulted officers?"

I don't think you can have it both ways.

---

Any honest, intelligent person can surmise that I was referring to Pretti's situation as a whole, which is how law enforcement deals with people, especially known "hostiles". In Pretti's specific case, he had already declared himself a "hostile" with his prior assault on the officers, therefore they dealt with him in that context. So yes, absolutely - all it took for him to get shot in his second encounter with the officers within that context, where Pretti was clearly impeding and resisting, was the gun discharge.

Another way you can look at it is that Pretti could have been verbally assaulting the officers like he had done previously. We don't know, we aren't privy to the entire verbal exchange in that second encounter. In that sense, saying that Pretti wasn't assaulting the officers in the second encounter may not be true at all.

---

Do you understand that deadly force is only justified by the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm? "Imminent" doesn't mean something that happened 11 days ago.

---

Do you really think the gun discharged 11 days ago?

---

No. Do you really think that's when he got shot?

---

Um, seriously... you should get checked out.

---

Yeah...you're trying to conflate two incidents far apart in time to spin up a justification for what happened in the moment. The law doesn't work that way.

---

You do realize that the gun discharge and the shooting happened in the same moment, not 11 days apart, don't you?

Maybe it's because you're up too late. Go to sleep, Sam. You'll think better in the morning.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GOP Senator Rand Paul: "When people watch that video and the government tells them, 'Well, he was assaulting the police officers,' nobody with any objectivity believes that's what's happening."

---

I think an intelligent person might be able to deduce that those government officials might have actually been talking about the ENTIRETY of the officers' encounter with Pretti, which the officers reported to them, and not just that first video. Their report included Pretti's assault on the officers that the public was only made privy to upon release of the later video.

---

So you'd agree that he wasn't assaulting police officers in the video where he was shot?

---

Yes, I'd agree, not in that video. I never said he did. What it did show was that he was impeding officers and resisting arrest.

---

So this isn't really true:

Quote:

---

Again, very, very unlucky for Pretti that it had happened. But it was Pretti who very unwisely decided to carry a weapon while he was assaulting officers, to where all it would take is for ONE very unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time for him to get shot by the officers. And incredibly, that one thing actually happened. If anything, Pretti was killed due to an act of God, sort of speak.

---

---

I was obviously referring to Pretti's entire interaction with the officers during his protests, which encompasses his previous and undeniable assault on the officers while carrying - which the officers in the later, fatal encounter already knew about either because they were the very ones he had assaulted, or because they were passed the info. The second altercation Pretti had with the officers can be seen as a continuation of his first. The cops take into account the entire context of the situation, something that a snippet of video can not deliver.

---

Hmm.

So what do you mean when you say "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time when he was assaulting officers?"

Do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the time when he was not assaulting officers?"

Or do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen during an 11-day period in which he allegedly assaulted officers?"

I don't think you can have it both ways.

---

Any honest, intelligent person can surmise that I was referring to Pretti's situation as a whole, which is how law enforcement deals with people, especially known "hostiles". In Pretti's specific case, he had already declared himself a "hostile" with his prior assault on the officers, therefore they dealt with him in that context. So yes, absolutely - all it took for him to get shot in his second encounter with the officers within that context, where Pretti was clearly impeding and resisting, was the gun discharge.

Another way you can look at it is that Pretti could have been verbally assaulting the officers like he had done previously. We don't know, we aren't privy to the entire verbal exchange in that second encounter. In that sense, saying that Pretti wasn't assaulting the officers in the second encounter may not be true at all.

---

Do you understand that deadly force is only justified by the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm? "Imminent" doesn't mean something that happened 11 days ago.

---

Do you really think the gun discharged 11 days ago?

---

No. Do you really think that's when he got shot?

---

Um, seriously... you should get checked out.

---

Yeah...you're trying to conflate two incidents far apart in time to spin up a justification for what happened in the moment. The law doesn't work that way.

---

You do realize that the gun discharge and the shooting happened in the same moment, not 11 days apart, don't you?

Maybe it's because you're up too late. Go to sleep, Sam. You'll think better in the morning.

---

Didn't you also argue there was an "assault?" It is late, so perhaps I'm thinking of someone else.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GOP Senator Rand Paul: "When people watch that video and the government tells them, 'Well, he was assaulting the police officers,' nobody with any objectivity believes that's what's happening."

---

I think an intelligent person might be able to deduce that those government officials might have actually been talking about the ENTIRETY of the officers' encounter with Pretti, which the officers reported to them, and not just that first video. Their report included Pretti's assault on the officers that the public was only made privy to upon release of the later video.

---

So you'd agree that he wasn't assaulting police officers in the video where he was shot?

---

Yes, I'd agree, not in that video. I never said he did. What it did show was that he was impeding officers and resisting arrest.

---

So this isn't really true:

Quote:

---

Again, very, very unlucky for Pretti that it had happened. But it was Pretti who very unwisely decided to carry a weapon while he was assaulting officers, to where all it would take is for ONE very unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time for him to get shot by the officers. And incredibly, that one thing actually happened. If anything, Pretti was killed due to an act of God, sort of speak.

---

---

I was obviously referring to Pretti's entire interaction with the officers during his protests, which encompasses his previous and undeniable assault on the officers while carrying - which the officers in the later, fatal encounter already knew about either because they were the very ones he had assaulted, or because they were passed the info. The second altercation Pretti had with the officers can be seen as a continuation of his first. The cops take into account the entire context of the situation, something that a snippet of video can not deliver.

---

Hmm.

So what do you mean when you say "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time when he was assaulting officers?"

Do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the time when he was not assaulting officers?"

Or do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen during an 11-day period in which he allegedly assaulted officers?"

I don't think you can have it both ways.

---

Any honest, intelligent person can surmise that I was referring to Pretti's situation as a whole, which is how law enforcement deals with people, especially known "hostiles". In Pretti's specific case, he had already declared himself a "hostile" with his prior assault on the officers, therefore they dealt with him in that context. So yes, absolutely - all it took for him to get shot in his second encounter with the officers within that context, where Pretti was clearly impeding and resisting, was the gun discharge.

Another way you can look at it is that Pretti could have been verbally assaulting the officers like he had done previously. We don't know, we aren't privy to the entire verbal exchange in that second encounter. In that sense, saying that Pretti wasn't assaulting the officers in the second encounter may not be true at all.

---

Do you understand that deadly force is only justified by the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm? "Imminent" doesn't mean something that happened 11 days ago.

---

Do you really think the gun discharged 11 days ago?

---

No. Do you really think that's when he got shot?

---

Um, seriously... you should get checked out.

---

Yeah...you're trying to conflate two incidents far apart in time to spin up a justification for what happened in the moment. The law doesn't work that way.

---

You do realize that the gun discharge and the shooting happened in the same moment, not 11 days apart, don't you?

Maybe it's because you're up too late. Go to sleep, Sam. You'll think better in the morning.

---

Didn't you also argue there was an "assault?" It is late, so perhaps I'm thinking of someone else.

---

Sheesh. Yes, 11 days prior. You're obviously confused, thinking I was saying the "imminent threat" to the officers was the assault 11 days prior to the shooting, when I clearly was talking about the gun discharge. Just go re-read what I wrote, and go to sleep.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GOP Senator Rand Paul: "When people watch that video and the government tells them, 'Well, he was assaulting the police officers,' nobody with any objectivity believes that's what's happening."

---

I think an intelligent person might be able to deduce that those government officials might have actually been talking about the ENTIRETY of the officers' encounter with Pretti, which the officers reported to them, and not just that first video. Their report included Pretti's assault on the officers that the public was only made privy to upon release of the later video.

---

So you'd agree that he wasn't assaulting police officers in the video where he was shot?

---

Yes, I'd agree, not in that video. I never said he did. What it did show was that he was impeding officers and resisting arrest.

---

So this isn't really true:

Quote:

---

Again, very, very unlucky for Pretti that it had happened. But it was Pretti who very unwisely decided to carry a weapon while he was assaulting officers, to where all it would take is for ONE very unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time for him to get shot by the officers. And incredibly, that one thing actually happened. If anything, Pretti was killed due to an act of God, sort of speak.

---

---

I was obviously referring to Pretti's entire interaction with the officers during his protests, which encompasses his previous and undeniable assault on the officers while carrying - which the officers in the later, fatal encounter already knew about either because they were the very ones he had assaulted, or because they were passed the info. The second altercation Pretti had with the officers can be seen as a continuation of his first. The cops take into account the entire context of the situation, something that a snippet of video can not deliver.

---

Hmm.

So what do you mean when you say "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time when he was assaulting officers?"

Do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the time when he was not assaulting officers?"

Or do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen during an 11-day period in which he allegedly assaulted officers?"

I don't think you can have it both ways.

---

Any honest, intelligent person can surmise that I was referring to Pretti's situation as a whole, which is how law enforcement deals with people, especially known "hostiles". In Pretti's specific case, he had already declared himself a "hostile" with his prior assault on the officers, therefore they dealt with him in that context. So yes, absolutely - all it took for him to get shot in his second encounter with the officers within that context, where Pretti was clearly impeding and resisting, was the gun discharge.

Another way you can look at it is that Pretti could have been verbally assaulting the officers like he had done previously. We don't know, we aren't privy to the entire verbal exchange in that second encounter. In that sense, saying that Pretti wasn't assaulting the officers in the second encounter may not be true at all.

---

Do you understand that deadly force is only justified by the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm? "Imminent" doesn't mean something that happened 11 days ago.

---

Do you really think the gun discharged 11 days ago?

---

No. Do you really think that's when he got shot?

---

Um, seriously... you should get checked out.

---

Yeah...you're trying to conflate two incidents far apart in time to spin up a justification for what happened in the moment. The law doesn't work that way.

---

You do realize that the gun discharge and the shooting happened in the same moment, not 11 days apart, don't you?

Maybe it's because you're up too late. Go to sleep, Sam. You'll think better in the morning.

---

Didn't you also argue there was an "assault?" It is late, so perhaps I'm thinking of someone else.

---

Sheesh. Yes, 11 days prior. You're obviously confused, thinking I was saying the "imminent threat" to the officers was the assault 11 days prior to the shooting, when I clearly was talking about the gun discharge. Just go re-read what I wrote, and go to sleep.

---

So any time there's an accidental gun discharge, it's an imminent threat? No wonder I'm confused.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

GOP Senator Rand Paul: "When people watch that video and the government tells them, 'Well, he was assaulting the police officers,' nobody with any objectivity believes that's what's happening."

---

I think an intelligent person might be able to deduce that those government officials might have actually been talking about the ENTIRETY of the officers' encounter with Pretti, which the officers reported to them, and not just that first video. Their report included Pretti's assault on the officers that the public was only made privy to upon release of the later video.

---

So you'd agree that he wasn't assaulting police officers in the video where he was shot?

---

Yes, I'd agree, not in that video. I never said he did. What it did show was that he was impeding officers and resisting arrest.

---

So this isn't really true:

Quote:

---

Again, very, very unlucky for Pretti that it had happened. But it was Pretti who very unwisely decided to carry a weapon while he was assaulting officers, to where all it would take is for ONE very unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time for him to get shot by the officers. And incredibly, that one thing actually happened. If anything, Pretti was killed due to an act of God, sort of speak.

---

---

I was obviously referring to Pretti's entire interaction with the officers during his protests, which encompasses his previous and undeniable assault on the officers while carrying - which the officers in the later, fatal encounter already knew about either because they were the very ones he had assaulted, or because they were passed the info. The second altercation Pretti had with the officers can be seen as a continuation of his first. The cops take into account the entire context of the situation, something that a snippet of video can not deliver.

---

Hmm.

So what do you mean when you say "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time when he was assaulting officers?"

Do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen at precisely the time when he was not assaulting officers?"

Or do you mean "all it took was for one unlucky thing to happen during an 11-day period in which he allegedly assaulted officers?"

I don't think you can have it both ways.

---

Any honest, intelligent person can surmise that I was referring to Pretti's situation as a whole, which is how law enforcement deals with people, especially known "hostiles". In Pretti's specific case, he had already declared himself a "hostile" with his prior assault on the officers, therefore they dealt with him in that context. So yes, absolutely - all it took for him to get shot in his second encounter with the officers within that context, where Pretti was clearly impeding and resisting, was the gun discharge.

Another way you can look at it is that Pretti could have been verbally assaulting the officers like he had done previously. We don't know, we aren't privy to the entire verbal exchange in that second encounter. In that sense, saying that Pretti wasn't assaulting the officers in the second encounter may not be true at all.

---

Do you understand that deadly force is only justified by the imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm? "Imminent" doesn't mean something that happened 11 days ago.

---

Do you really think the gun discharged 11 days ago?

---

No. Do you really think that's when he got shot?

---

Um, seriously... you should get checked out.

---

Yeah...you're trying to conflate two incidents far apart in time to spin up a justification for what happened in the moment. The law doesn't work that way.

---

You do realize that the gun discharge and the shooting happened in the same moment, not 11 days apart, don't you?

Maybe it's because you're up too late. Go to sleep, Sam. You'll think better in the morning.

---

Didn't you also argue there was an "assault?" It is late, so perhaps I'm thinking of someone else.

---

Sheesh. Yes, 11 days prior. You're obviously confused, thinking I was saying the "imminent threat" to the officers was the assault 11 days prior to the shooting, when I clearly was talking about the gun discharge. Just go re-read what I wrote, and go to sleep.

---

I'm confused.

---

Good. The first step to healing is admitting you've got a problem. Now go with it. Sleep tight.

Walz, Frey, Ellison and Flanagan…the DSA *politicians* in Minnesota are behind the chaos. Flanagan, the Lt Governor is on the Anti-ICE Signal Chat calling for violence against federal law enforcement.



Excellent video where he lays out the options and the problems with each one.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

I don't totally disagree with you; however your primary perception of the protests as a whole is different than what I and most others believe.
Do you believe Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act?

---

I would love to see some data to back that up.

In fairness, there are a lot of American who- believe:
- Trump banned Muslims
- Florida banned saying "gay"
- Michael Brown said "hands up, don't shoot"
- George Floyd was an saint
- Juicy Smalls was attacked by Trump supports at Subway
- Border Patrol agents whipped Haitian migrants
- Tens of thousands of unarmed black men are killed by police each year
- The 2016 election was stolen by Russian hackers

Here is a specific question for you: not sure what you do for a living, but regardless: if a mob of people followed you, blew whistles near you, spit in your face, kicked your equipment, constantly yelled profanities at you ... would you consider that a "protest" or interference?

I look forward to your answer.

---

BUDOS - I am sure you mistakenly missed the post above - look forward to your answer.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

If this is real and not AI, then the story is going to fizzle

New footage shows that Alex Pretti was a menace to society who previously vandalized an ICE vehicle in an attempt to escalate violence with agents.

Color me shocked pic.twitter.com/k4eQWQVb6F

— Savanah Hernandez (@Savsays) January 28, 2026

---

What a sweetheart, "the perfect guy," "the kind of guy you'd want your daughter to marry," I was told over the last few days.

Indeed, he is. I'd love to have one of my daughters bring home an unemployed protester who follows around LEO screaming like a banshee and kicking out taillights. No doubt he's a peach in all facets of his life. Imagine the excitement at Thanksgiving and the joy of having grandchildren who are taught the organized protestor lifestyle.

---

So shoot him dead in the street.

Arrest hin, but him in jail for 60 days. Fine him. Kill him?

What moral code were you raised with?

---

He was basically playing in freeway traffic and go hit, now you're trying to blame the car that hit him for his death.

---

You really believe if you hit someone on the freeway you won't be getting a visit from the Police?

How about you hit them, argue with the Police and they shoot you...

I really do not know what world you guys live in.

---

We live in world where low iq people believe they have the right to attack federal agents while brandishing a firearm.

---

It was holstered and he was tackled by 5 guys. The idiot should have been arrested, no doubt. If not the day he died, 11 days earlier. They should have cuffed him and brought him in. Perfectly reasonable. Even macing him, brought it on himself. Deadly force? On a City Street with civilians around? 10 times? Come on, no reasonable person can think that is warranted in a law enforcement situation. Hell, if you did that in Afghanistan CID would be visiting.

Homan got it under control and took the appropriate actions. Can we put him in charge of HSA? Make that guy a Cabinet member.

---

He really should have been arrested 11 days earlier. His actions deserved some time incarcerated.
Not sure why they just threw him aside and then left him alone.

His actions the day he died were much more subdued, almost as though he recalibrated his actions.
He was moving off the road and came to the aid of a woman who was slung around like a rag doll, he was attacked from the back, he was wrested to the ground and after his holstered, not brandished, gun was ripped out of the back of his belt, he was summarily shot at 10 times, with many of the shots landing.

He was certainly a jerk and an ass. His actions in the earlier video were undefendable and deserved an arrest.

Nothing he did however on the day he died deserved death, or even close to it.

He wasn't the sweet little guy that he was portrayed to be at all. He still should not have been killed, the response the day he was killed far exceeded his actions.

---

This isn't about Pretti "deserving" death. It's dishonest for people to keep misframing it that way. Pretti gambled with his life with his actions, and even still, despite everything we know about him - his prior violent assault on officers, his active impedance, his resisting arrest, and most notably, him doing all this while carrying a loaded weapon - STILL, had his weapon not spontaneously discharged (ostensibly - the investigation is ongoing) the officers would most likely not have shot him, and he'd be alive today.

Pretti was a victim of his own bad choices that culminated in being in a position where he was going to get killed if just ONE thing went wrong. It did. And unfortunately, it was something that was not his nor the officers' fault or within their control.

---

His weapon was taken from him while still holstered. If it discharged, it discharged in the hands of the Federal Agent. It was not Pertti having the weapon that caused the discharge. It was the officers tackling him and taking from his holster.

That is neither here nor there, the investigation will show that as it is on tape. The issue is the orders the Federal Agents were operating under when interacting with protestors on US streets. Aggression begets Aggression. The full tactical, the masks (for whatever reason), the use of tear gas, the picking up people on the streets (non-targeted enforcement)...

That is what caused the problem, not that everyone didn't get on their knees and interlock their fingers on their head when addressing ICE to make sure they wouldn't be shot...

---

It makes no difference in whose hands the weapon was in while it spontaneously discharged. The fact remains that if it did indeed discharge by itself, and the other officers had no idea where the weapon was and only saw that it was gone from Pretti's holster - then, as highly, highly unlucky that was for Pretti, the officers had the right in that split second to decide that their lives were in danger and assume that it was Pretti who had fired the shot. Again, very, very unlucky for Pretti that it had happened. But it was Pretti who very unwisely decided to carry a weapon while he was assaulting officers, to where all it would take is for ONE very unlucky thing to happen at precisely the wrong time for him to get shot by the officers. And incredibly, that one thing actually happened. If anything, Pretti was killed due to an act of God, sort of speak.

To blame what happened to Pretti on ICE policy and tactics is dishonest and/or ignorant and ideologically driven. It didn't matter what the policy was, who was enforcing it, or what the tactics were. If this were ANY police engagement of an armed protester - (you can insert whatever protest you want here, it doesn't matter) - and the gun the resisting protester was carrying went off in the chaos of wrestling with cops , then there's a near 99% chance they're going to get shot by the cops. This is just the reality of such a situation. Cops want to go home alive too. Argue against ICE policy and tactics all you want, but using Pretti getting shot as evidence of its failure is not being fair and honest, it's being ideologically opportunistic. "Don't let a crisis go to waste" is what democrats live by, and it's nauseating how many sheep they're able to manipulate this way.

---

To say that any protest with any Law Enforcement would have ended up with him dead shot 10 times is incredibly ignorant.

---

No, what's incredibly ignorant is having an incredibly simple point fly completely over your head.

You have an uncanny habit of miscomprehension and misframing things in order for the square peg of reality to get forced into your ideological circle.

---

This is good. I am saying every situation and agency is different. He is saying it all the same. One Agent could have changed the trajectory of that situation.

I am saying the Federal Government doesn't have the right to shoot you in the street 10 times with impunity. He is saying bringing a legal conceal carry weapon is justification for the Federal Government to shoot you. And I am the ideolog? The Far Right on this site are the object ones? Got you...

---

You: "He is saying bringing a legal conceal carry weapon is justification for the Federal Government to shoot you."

Look, I hate to keep beating up on you, but you keep asking for it with yet another demonstration of your continual bad habit of straw manning, miscomprehending, and/or misframing things in order to project your extremely biased view and/or to dishonestly marginalize the other person's view. Which is made worse by your utter unwillingness to incorporate new thoughts and information that might challenge it. It's the SAME thing with you on Roman Catholicism. You're a brick wall of ignorance, willful or unwillful, I really am not sure. Simply stated, you're either a pathetic liar, or you're just stuck on stupid. If this really is the reputation you want to build yourself here, then by all means keep at it.

---

You are the perfect example of someone that can quote technical details, but really doesn't understand what they are talking about. The closest example, is the Pharisees. You are showing the same here. Actually, you are on ignore because you don't add anything to the discussions but quoting verse. Once I again, I regret checking what you said, it adds nothing...

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

If this is real and not AI, then the story is going to fizzle

New footage shows that Alex Pretti was a menace to society who previously vandalized an ICE vehicle in an attempt to escalate violence with agents.

Color me shocked pic.twitter.com/k4eQWQVb6F

— Savanah Hernandez (@Savsays) January 28, 2026

---

What a sweetheart, "the perfect guy," "the kind of guy you'd want your daughter to marry," I was told over the last few days.

Indeed, he is. I'd love to have one of my daughters bring home an unemployed protester who follows around LEO screaming like a banshee and kicking out taillights. No doubt he's a peach in all facets of his life. Imagine the excitement at Thanksgiving and the joy of having grandchildren who are taught the organized protestor lifestyle.

---

So shoot him dead in the street.

Arrest hin, but him in jail for 60 days. Fine him. Kill him?

What moral code were you raised with?

---

He was basically playing in freeway traffic and go hit, now you're trying to blame the car that hit him for his death.

---

You really believe if you hit someone on the freeway you won't be getting a visit from the Police?

How about you hit them, argue with the Police and they shoot you...

I really do not know what world you guys live in.

---

the real world, unlike you.

Pretty didn't argue with the police. He fought with them. While armed. Thereby presenting a credible threat to those officers, who responded appropriately to protect themselves. All on camera, for the whole world to see..

You are as bad as those unhinged leftists.

---

He fought with ICE. Ok, let's say you are right on the day he was shot he fought. You don't shoot people in the street. Pretti was disarmed when he was shot. The Agent had the gun and removed it from the situation. Come on, the guy was disarmed and shot 10 times in the back. You know even on the battlefield, this would have been an unlawful shooting. It is ok to admit it was screwed up and the ICE Agents overreacted. You don't have to back everything.

Problem is, FLBear, it didn't happen the way you say, and Pretti carrying a gun at all at the very least contributed to the outcome.

Come on, admitting Pretti was stupid and reckless doesn't make the ICE guys heroes, but it would be more honest about this mess.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

I don't totally disagree with you; however your primary perception of the protests as a whole is different than what I and most others believe.
Do you believe Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act?

---

I would love to see some data to back that up.

In fairness, there are a lot of American who- believe:
- Trump banned Muslims
- Florida banned saying "gay"
- Michael Brown said "hands up, don't shoot"
- George Floyd was an saint
- Juicy Smalls was attacked by Trump supports at Subway
- Border Patrol agents whipped Haitian migrants
- Tens of thousands of unarmed black men are killed by police each year
- The 2016 election was stolen by Russian hackers

Here is a specific question for you: not sure what you do for a living, but regardless: if a mob of people followed you, blew whistles near you, spit in your face, kicked your equipment, constantly yelled profanities at you ... would you consider that a "protest" or interference?

I look forward to your answer.

---

BUDOS - I am sure you mistakenly missed the post above - look forward to your answer.

---

BUDOS - realize you might have gone into hiding for a few days to avoid the question, but in case you just missed it ... would love to hear your answer.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Problem is, FLBear, it didn't happen the way you say, and Pretti carrying a gun at all at the very least contributed to the outcome.

Come on, admitting Pretti was stupid and reckless doesn't make the ICE guys heroes, but it would be more honest about this mess.

---

God yeah it contributed. He was stupid and he should have been arrested for kicking truck. I hold our law enforcement to a higher standard. They need to restrain from shooting people. They should be better trained than that.