KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/videos-contradict-u-s-account-of-minneapolis-shooting-by-federal-agents-fbe1e488

Article that shows, frame-by-frame, that OP's narrative is a lie.

Do better, Scotty.

---

Dude had zero business physically interfering with law enforcement officers attempting to arrest a fugitive felon.

And to do so in possession of a loaded 9mm and TWO mags proved to be terminally stupid.

---

At what point did he physically interfere?

---

Look at the video.

Tell me you have such a right.

Fool shows up with a loaded 9mm and TWO mags.

Then convince yourself the officers were required to die instead.

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/videos-contradict-u-s-account-of-minneapolis-shooting-by-federal-agents-fbe1e488

Article that shows, frame-by-frame, that OP's narrative is a lie.

Do better, Scotty.

---

Dude had zero business physically interfering with law enforcement officers attempting to arrest a fugitive felon.

And to do so in possession of a loaded 9mm and TWO mags proved to be terminally stupid.

---

At what point did he physically interfere?

---

Look at the video.

Tell me you have such a right.

Fool shows up with a loaded 9mm and TWO mags.

Then convince yourself the officers were required to die instead.

---

You seemed very convinced he physically interfered, so it should be easy for you to indicate when he carried out the act you believe took place.

Are you also suggesting that possession of a firearm and ammunition (legally), justifies being shot multiple times.

At what point were any of the ICE agents lives in danger?

---

First the dude CHOOSES to confront law enforcement officers on a legal attempt to arrest a known perp. That alone is a felony.

Doing so while Knowingly carrying a loaded 9mm with
Two mags. ( I occasionally conceal carry my 9mm. Never once have I packed EXTRA mags )

Then the dude violently resists arrests. Another felony.

The officers lives were immediately at risk from the very first of the dudes choices.

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/videos-contradict-u-s-account-of-minneapolis-shooting-by-federal-agents-fbe1e488

Article that shows, frame-by-frame, that OP's narrative is a lie.

Do better, Scotty.

---

Dude had zero business physically interfering with law enforcement officers attempting to arrest a fugitive felon.

And to do so in possession of a loaded 9mm and TWO mags proved to be terminally stupid.

---

At what point did he physically interfere?

---

Look at the video.

Tell me you have such a right.

Fool shows up with a loaded 9mm and TWO mags.

Then convince yourself the officers were required to die instead.

---

You seemed very convinced he physically interfered, so it should be easy for you to indicate when he carried out the act you believe took place.

Are you also suggesting that possession of a firearm and ammunition (legally), justifies being shot multiple times.

At what point were any of the ICE agents lives in danger?

---

First the dude CHOOSES to confront law enforcement officers on a legal attempt to arrest a known perp. That alone is a felony.

Doing so while Knowingly carrying a loaded 9mm with
Two mags. ( I occasionally conceal carry my 9mm. Never once have I packed EXTRA mags )

Then the dude violently resists arrests. Another felony.

The officers lives were immediately at risk from the very first of the dudes choices.

---

Well, to start, both the acts you describe as felonies are misdemeanor.

If the the standard for officers for use of deadly force is what you describe in your last line, then shooting every protester in any circumstance is justified more or less. Surely that isn't what you're proposing (or maybe it is)?

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/videos-contradict-u-s-account-of-minneapolis-shooting-by-federal-agents-fbe1e488

Article that shows, frame-by-frame, that OP's narrative is a lie.

Do better, Scotty.

---

Dude had zero business physically interfering with law enforcement officers attempting to arrest a fugitive felon.

And to do so in possession of a loaded 9mm and TWO mags proved to be terminally stupid.

---

At what point did he physically interfere?

---

Look at the video.

Tell me you have such a right.

Fool shows up with a loaded 9mm and TWO mags.

Then convince yourself the officers were required to die instead.

---

You seemed very convinced he physically interfered, so it should be easy for you to indicate when he carried out the act you believe took place.

Are you also suggesting that possession of a firearm and ammunition (legally), justifies being shot multiple times.

At what point were any of the ICE agents lives in danger?

---

First the dude CHOOSES to confront law enforcement officers on a legal attempt to arrest a known perp. That alone is a felony.

Doing so while Knowingly carrying a loaded 9mm with
Two mags. ( I occasionally conceal carry my 9mm. Never once have I packed EXTRA mags )

Then the dude violently resists arrests. Another felony.

The officers lives were immediately at risk from the very first of the dudes choices.

---

Well, to start, both the acts you describe as felonies are misdemeanor.

If the the standard for officers for use of deadly force is what you describe in your last line, then shooting every protester in any circumstance is justified more or less. Surely that isn't what you're proposing (or maybe it is)?

---

False Premise Fallacy.

It was not simply a "protest." It was interfering in lawful law enforcement.

If you're position is correct, you do not require disinformation to bolster your case.

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/videos-contradict-u-s-account-of-minneapolis-shooting-by-federal-agents-fbe1e488

Article that shows, frame-by-frame, that OP's narrative is a lie.

Do better, Scotty.

---

Dude had zero business physically interfering with law enforcement officers attempting to arrest a fugitive felon.

And to do so in possession of a loaded 9mm and TWO mags proved to be terminally stupid.

---

At what point did he physically interfere?

---

Look at the video.

Tell me you have such a right.

Fool shows up with a loaded 9mm and TWO mags.

Then convince yourself the officers were required to die instead.

---

You seemed very convinced he physically interfered, so it should be easy for you to indicate when he carried out the act you believe took place.

Are you also suggesting that possession of a firearm and ammunition (legally), justifies being shot multiple times.

At what point were any of the ICE agents lives in danger?

---

First the dude CHOOSES to confront law enforcement officers on a legal attempt to arrest a known perp. That alone is a felony.

Doing so while Knowingly carrying a loaded 9mm with
Two mags. ( I occasionally conceal carry my 9mm. Never once have I packed EXTRA mags )

Then the dude violently resists arrests. Another felony.

The officers lives were immediately at risk from the very first of the dudes choices.

---

Well, to start, both the acts you describe as felonies are misdemeanor.

If the the standard for officers for use of deadly force is what you describe in your last line, then shooting every protester in any circumstance is justified more or less. Surely that isn't what you're proposing (or maybe it is)?

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/videos-contradict-u-s-account-of-minneapolis-shooting-by-federal-agents-fbe1e488

Article that shows, frame-by-frame, that OP's narrative is a lie.

Do better, Scotty.

---

Dude had zero business physically interfering with law enforcement officers attempting to arrest a fugitive felon.

And to do so in possession of a loaded 9mm and TWO mags proved to be terminally stupid.

---

At what point did he physically interfere?

---

Look at the video.

Tell me you have such a right.

Fool shows up with a loaded 9mm and TWO mags.

Then convince yourself the officers were required to die instead.

---

You seemed very convinced he physically interfered, so it should be easy for you to indicate when he carried out the act you believe took place.

Are you also suggesting that possession of a firearm and ammunition (legally), justifies being shot multiple times.

At what point were any of the ICE agents lives in danger?

---

First the dude CHOOSES to confront law enforcement officers on a legal attempt to arrest a known perp. That alone is a felony.

Doing so while Knowingly carrying a loaded 9mm with
Two mags. ( I occasionally conceal carry my 9mm. Never once have I packed EXTRA mags )

Then the dude violently resists arrests. Another felony.

The officers lives were immediately at risk from the very first of the dudes choices.

---

Well, to start, both the acts you describe as felonies are misdemeanor.

If the the standard for officers for use of deadly force is what you describe in your last line, then shooting every protester in any circumstance is justified more or less. Surely that isn't what you're proposing (or maybe it is)?

---

You are playing a deflection game.

The dude came armed with extra mags. Violently resisted arrest.

It was a clean shoot.

You or I make the same choices in any kind of confrontation with law enforcement officers……it will also result in a clean shoot judgment.

---

303Bear said:

---

( I occasionally conceal carry my 9mm. Never once have I packed EXTRA mags )

---

303Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/videos-contradict-u-s-account-of-minneapolis-shooting-by-federal-agents-fbe1e488

Article that shows, frame-by-frame, that OP's narrative is a lie.

Do better, Scotty.

---

Dude had zero business physically interfering with law enforcement officers attempting to arrest a fugitive felon.

And to do so in possession of a loaded 9mm and TWO mags proved to be terminally stupid.

---

At what point did he physically interfere?

---

Look at the video.

Tell me you have such a right.

Fool shows up with a loaded 9mm and TWO mags.

Then convince yourself the officers were required to die instead.

---

You seemed very convinced he physically interfered, so it should be easy for you to indicate when he carried out the act you believe took place.

Are you also suggesting that possession of a firearm and ammunition (legally), justifies being shot multiple times.

At what point were any of the ICE agents lives in danger?

---

First the dude CHOOSES to confront law enforcement officers on a legal attempt to arrest a known perp. That alone is a felony.

Doing so while Knowingly carrying a loaded 9mm with
Two mags. ( I occasionally conceal carry my 9mm. Never once have I packed EXTRA mags )

Then the dude violently resists arrests. Another felony.

The officers lives were immediately at risk from the very first of the dudes choices.

---

Well, to start, both the acts you describe as felonies are misdemeanor.

If the the standard for officers for use of deadly force is what you describe in your last line, then shooting every protester in any circumstance is justified more or less. Surely that isn't what you're proposing (or maybe it is)?

---

False Premise Fallacy.

It was not simply a "protest." It was interfering in lawful law enforcement.

If you're position is correct, you do not require disinformation to bolster your case.

---

Keep saying the same thing to everyone you disagree with, eventually you may use it correctly. Very much not a false equivalence as many protests impede police activity. Would ice agents be justified in using live rounds to clear protesters away from the gates of detention centers? The premise set forth above seems to suggest that is perfectly acceptable.

Still waiting for anyone to give a specific instance of interference that necessitated the ICE agents doing anything more than getting back in their cars and leaving with the suspect the had apparently already apprehended (maybe not, I haven't been able to find a definitive source for whether or not they got the guy they were stopped in the middle of the street to arrest).

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/videos-contradict-u-s-account-of-minneapolis-shooting-by-federal-agents-fbe1e488

Article that shows, frame-by-frame, that OP's narrative is a lie.

Do better, Scotty.

---

Dude had zero business physically interfering with law enforcement officers attempting to arrest a fugitive felon.

And to do so in possession of a loaded 9mm and TWO mags proved to be terminally stupid.

---

At what point did he physically interfere?

---

Look at the video.

Tell me you have such a right.

Fool shows up with a loaded 9mm and TWO mags.

Then convince yourself the officers were required to die instead.

---

You seemed very convinced he physically interfered, so it should be easy for you to indicate when he carried out the act you believe took place.

Are you also suggesting that possession of a firearm and ammunition (legally), justifies being shot multiple times.

At what point were any of the ICE agents lives in danger?

---

First the dude CHOOSES to confront law enforcement officers on a legal attempt to arrest a known perp. That alone is a felony.

Doing so while Knowingly carrying a loaded 9mm with
Two mags. ( I occasionally conceal carry my 9mm. Never once have I packed EXTRA mags )

Then the dude violently resists arrests. Another felony.

The officers lives were immediately at risk from the very first of the dudes choices.

---

Well, to start, both the acts you describe as felonies are misdemeanor.

If the the standard for officers for use of deadly force is what you describe in your last line, then shooting every protester in any circumstance is justified more or less. Surely that isn't what you're proposing (or maybe it is)?

---

You are playing a deflection game.

The dude came armed with extra mags. Violently resisted arrest.

It was a clean shoot.

You or I make the same choices in any kind of confrontation with law enforcement officers……it will also result in a clean shoot judgment.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/videos-contradict-u-s-account-of-minneapolis-shooting-by-federal-agents-fbe1e488

Article that shows, frame-by-frame, that OP's narrative is a lie.

Do better, Scotty.

---

Dude had zero business physically interfering with law enforcement officers attempting to arrest a fugitive felon.

And to do so in possession of a loaded 9mm and TWO mags proved to be terminally stupid.

---

At what point did he physically interfere?

---

Look at the video.

Tell me you have such a right.

Fool shows up with a loaded 9mm and TWO mags.

Then convince yourself the officers were required to die instead.

---

You seemed very convinced he physically interfered, so it should be easy for you to indicate when he carried out the act you believe took place.

Are you also suggesting that possession of a firearm and ammunition (legally), justifies being shot multiple times.

At what point were any of the ICE agents lives in danger?

---

First the dude CHOOSES to confront law enforcement officers on a legal attempt to arrest a known perp. That alone is a felony.

Doing so while Knowingly carrying a loaded 9mm with
Two mags. ( I occasionally conceal carry my 9mm. Never once have I packed EXTRA mags )

Then the dude violently resists arrests. Another felony.

The officers lives were immediately at risk from the very first of the dudes choices.

---

Well, to start, both the acts you describe as felonies are misdemeanor.

If the the standard for officers for use of deadly force is what you describe in your last line, then shooting every protester in any circumstance is justified more or less. Surely that isn't what you're proposing (or maybe it is)?

---

False Premise Fallacy.

It was not simply a "protest." It was interfering in lawful law enforcement.

If you're position is correct, you do not require disinformation to bolster your case.

---

Keep saying the same thing to everyone you disagree with, eventually you may use it correctly. Very much not a false equivalence as many protests impede police activity. Would ice agents be justified in using live rounds to clear protesters away from the gates of detention centers? The premise set forth above seems to suggest that is perfectly acceptable.

Still waiting for anyone to give a specific instance of interference that necessitated the ICE agents doing anything more than getting back in their cars and leaving with the suspect the had apparently already apprehended (maybe not, I haven't been able to find a definitive source for whether or not they got the guy they were stopped in the middle of the street to arrest).

---

False Premise Fallacy. Strawman. If you had confidence in your argument, you would not need disinformation. It only gives truth to the lie that you really believe what you type.

I could ask you if January Sixth was merely a First Amendment-protected protest and whether Ashli Babbitt's killing was justified, but we both know you will ignore both questions.

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/videos-contradict-u-s-account-of-minneapolis-shooting-by-federal-agents-fbe1e488

Article that shows, frame-by-frame, that OP's narrative is a lie.

Do better, Scotty.

---

Dude had zero business physically interfering with law enforcement officers attempting to arrest a fugitive felon.

And to do so in possession of a loaded 9mm and TWO mags proved to be terminally stupid.

---

At what point did he physically interfere?

---

Look at the video.

Tell me you have such a right.

Fool shows up with a loaded 9mm and TWO mags.

Then convince yourself the officers were required to die instead.

---

You seemed very convinced he physically interfered, so it should be easy for you to indicate when he carried out the act you believe took place.

Are you also suggesting that possession of a firearm and ammunition (legally), justifies being shot multiple times.

At what point were any of the ICE agents lives in danger?

---

First the dude CHOOSES to confront law enforcement officers on a legal attempt to arrest a known perp. That alone is a felony.

Doing so while Knowingly carrying a loaded 9mm with
Two mags. ( I occasionally conceal carry my 9mm. Never once have I packed EXTRA mags )

Then the dude violently resists arrests. Another felony.

The officers lives were immediately at risk from the very first of the dudes choices.

---

Well, to start, both the acts you describe as felonies are misdemeanor.

If the the standard for officers for use of deadly force is what you describe in your last line, then shooting every protester in any circumstance is justified more or less. Surely that isn't what you're proposing (or maybe it is)?

---

You are playing a deflection game.

The dude came armed with extra mags. Violently resisted arrest.

It was a clean shoot.

You or I make the same choices in any kind of confrontation with law enforcement officers……it will also result in a clean shoot judgment.

---

Lick those boots harder, ese.

---

303Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/videos-contradict-u-s-account-of-minneapolis-shooting-by-federal-agents-fbe1e488

Article that shows, frame-by-frame, that OP's narrative is a lie.

Do better, Scotty.

---

Dude had zero business physically interfering with law enforcement officers attempting to arrest a fugitive felon.

And to do so in possession of a loaded 9mm and TWO mags proved to be terminally stupid.

---

At what point did he physically interfere?

---

Look at the video.

Tell me you have such a right.

Fool shows up with a loaded 9mm and TWO mags.

Then convince yourself the officers were required to die instead.

---

You seemed very convinced he physically interfered, so it should be easy for you to indicate when he carried out the act you believe took place.

Are you also suggesting that possession of a firearm and ammunition (legally), justifies being shot multiple times.

At what point were any of the ICE agents lives in danger?

---

First the dude CHOOSES to confront law enforcement officers on a legal attempt to arrest a known perp. That alone is a felony.

Doing so while Knowingly carrying a loaded 9mm with
Two mags. ( I occasionally conceal carry my 9mm. Never once have I packed EXTRA mags )

Then the dude violently resists arrests. Another felony.

The officers lives were immediately at risk from the very first of the dudes choices.

---

Well, to start, both the acts you describe as felonies are misdemeanor.

If the the standard for officers for use of deadly force is what you describe in your last line, then shooting every protester in any circumstance is justified more or less. Surely that isn't what you're proposing (or maybe it is)?

---

False Premise Fallacy.

It was not simply a "protest." It was interfering in lawful law enforcement.

If you're position is correct, you do not require disinformation to bolster your case.

---

Keep saying the same thing to everyone you disagree with, eventually you may use it correctly. Very much not a false equivalence as many protests impede police activity. Would ice agents be justified in using live rounds to clear protesters away from the gates of detention centers? The premise set forth above seems to suggest that is perfectly acceptable.

Still waiting for anyone to give a specific instance of interference that necessitated the ICE agents doing anything more than getting back in their cars and leaving with the suspect the had apparently already apprehended (maybe not, I haven't been able to find a definitive source for whether or not they got the guy they were stopped in the middle of the street to arrest).

---

False Premise Fallacy. Strawman. If you had confidence in your argument, you would not need disinformation. It only gives truth to the lie that you really believe what you type.

I could ask you if January Sixth was merely a First Amendment-protected protest and whether Ashli Babbitt's killing was justified, but we both know you will ignore both questions.

---

Please highlight the disinformation. You keep repeating yourself without pointing out the actual flaws to perceive with the analogy apart from you disagree with it.

The initial response you inserted yourself into was pointing out the poster I was replying to (and with whom you clearly agree) was basing their support for the shooting, at least in part, on the very type of false premise you seem desperate to claim anyone you disagree with is using - namely that the obstruction and resisting arrest (even being very generous and assuming both of those crimes were committed) were felonies. They are, in fact, both misdemeanors, a highly important distinction legally. More ironic that you then turn around and draw a false equivalency with January 6th.

Though irrelevant to anything having to do with Minneapolis January 6th was neither a first amendment protected protest, nor was it an insurrection. Ashli Babbitt should not have been shot and the officer probably should have been charged. Still completely irrelevant to the actual discussion here, but do you feel better now that you know I agree with you about something? Or do I still have TDS solely because I will not immediately fall in line and rubber stamp ICE tactics that put people and the constitution at risk needlessly.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

El Oso said:

---

midgett said:

---

Pretti was actively obstructing ICE workers, resisting ICE officers, carrying a weapon and all the agitators were blowing whistles intentionally interfering with ICE workers and causing a chaotic situation.

It's a recipe for disaster. Should he have been shot? Probably not. But if you are part and parcel of interference with law enforcement, you should not be surprised when someone is killed.

Pretti is on video directing SUVs to form a barricade on the street, which is what prompted the first confrontation with officers.

Which means he was actively impeding/obstructing federal officers, a felony under 18 USC 111

Also a crime to conspire to obstruct/impede federal… https://t.co/mWnKcbKSrW

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) January 25, 2026

---

Can you post a still shot from the video that shows him obstructing ICE? I don't see obstruction when I watch the videos. I see him cross a street. I see him help a woman who ICE pushed down. Then I see ICE pepper spray and dog pile him. I never see him obstruct.

The man was tackled. I don't see resist. I see a takedown.

The gun was strapped to his back. Nobody even knew he had it until he was dogpiled by ICE. You cannot be pro 2A and use the gun against this man. He had a right to carry that weapon and he left it holstered the entire time he was there. It was an ICE agent who unholstered it.

If all the agitators were blowing whistles, then he was not an agitator. He doesn't have a whistle.

There is no probably not. This was a murder. At no time was an ICE agent in danger from the man who was shot.

I interfere with law enforcement on a regular basis. Every time I drive on 45, 35, 30, and I see cops in an active speed trap. I flash my lights at oncoming traffic to let them know it is in their best interests to slow down because there are police ahead. In Texas, this is actually against the law, and a cop who sees me do it can pull me over. Following your logic, nobody should be surprised if a cop shoots me in the future because yes, I am legally armed in my car and obstructing law enforcement.

---

The last paragraph is a great demonstration of the mental gymnastics employed by so many ultra-partisan tribal thinkers, especially those with TDS. I have not watched the video - its is generally pointless even for the interwebs to argue those types of things - but the rest of your post makes a lot of sense if true. If you're confidence in your position, you don' to engage in the divisive stupidity of the last graf.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

What I think happened: Pretti was not fully compliant and thus multiple officers entered the fray to apprehend him. It was already known by the officers before this point that Pretti had a holstered gun. In the chaos of wresting Pretti to the ground, an officer reaches in an removed Pretti's gun from the holster, and another officer sees an arm that he thinks is Pretti's, taking the gun out. Thinking Pretti has his gun in his hand, the officer then shoots him. The other officers, possibly hearing "he's got the gun!" from the shooting officer, react instinctively and shoot as well.

HIghly, highly unfortunate situation for Pretti, much like the lady in the car. But such happenings are inevitable, when you have protesters actively encouraged by their leadership to impede a lawful proceeding carried out by armed law enforcement officers who are already on edge because of constant threats against them. It's a highly combustible situation…

The officers have NO obligation to not see you as a threat to their safety. Having a GUN on you while you're doing this?

You're playing with dynamite.

---