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.

---

I wonder if one was chambered

El Oso said:

---

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.

---

It's not mental gymnastics. It's a slippery slope argument. The whistle blowers were trying to alert people of law enforcement presence. My flashing lights do the same. If that poster is okay with this man's death and we follow the slippery slope, he'd be okay with mine too.

And my post before the slippery slope is 100% accurate and all available videos show it.

---

Incorrect. Try again.

Fre3dombear 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.

---

I wonder if one was chambered

---

I never have one in the chamber.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

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. Yes, there absolutely, 100 percent should have been better protocol, training, and execution by the officers to prevent being in a situation where you might shoot a protester. But you also HAVE to be smarter than to carry a firearm when you engaged in law breaking, especially against armed law officers. Officers are human, and they make mistakes. You can't constantly harrass them, blow annoying whistles in their face, yell and spit at them, and block their traffic all day while they are carrying out their duties without expecting a confrontation from them. You've raised the temperature and the stakes at that point. 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. At that point, you subject your life to there not being any missteps, mistakes, or misperceptions by the officers, which the law of averages says is bound to happen.

By the way... where is White Lives Matter?

---

The lack of empathy for these public servants is shocking.

Constant harassment from domestic terrorists will take its toll over time.

Pretti is either a Tampon-level rhetard brining a gun to interfere with law enforcement or had an ulterior motive.

---

And you accuse others of mental gymnastics?

Sheesh.

KaiBear said:

---

Fre3dombear 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.

---

I wonder if one was chambered

---

I never have one in the chamber.

---

Not you

hodedofome said:

---

I thought the gun he was carrying has a reputation for firing inadvertently. Could have happened on its own.

---

According to this guy's analysis, it did.

KaiBear said:

---

Fre3dombear 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.

---

I wonder if one was chambered

---

I never have one in the chamber.

---

Do you wait to put your seatbelt on until right before a crash, too?

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Boot licking is en vogue on the R&P board of late.

---

Nothing is funnier than seeing the same Talking Points work through the LWNJ crowd.

The boot licking one is funny - was all over my social media yesterday.

ScottS said:

---

---

Missing the days when conservatives didn't trust the government.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Boot licking is en vogue on the R&P board of late.

---

They taste the leather on their tongue but it's different that the taste of ass they're used to.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Boot licking is en vogue on the R&P board of late.

---

They taste the leather on their tongue but it's different that the taste of ass they're used to.

---

Just like your mother is used to tasting homeless men's dick cheese in her efforts to raise crack money.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Boot licking is en vogue on the R&P board of late.

---

Yea totally

Because if you're not totally down with Leftist mobs harassing & threatening Federal agents on the streets whenever they try to remove 3rd world invaders from the USA then you are a total super serious bootlicker…

Got their number Mitchy

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Fre3dombear 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.

---

I wonder if one was chambered

---

Even if it was, that is legal. Possessing a firearm legally is not probable cause. I thought you guys were 2A fans? You are saying the Government has the right to:

A -Curtail legal gun ownership and carrying.
B- Carrying gives the Government the right to arrest you and treat you as a threat?
C- Carrying 2 mags is probable cause?

You guys really going down that road? I didn't know this Board was such Federal Government fans...

---

Let me try and explain this to you one more time but more slowly. It is actually very simple.

1. NO ONE DISPUTES HE HAD A LEGAL RIGHT TO CARRY A WEAPON (UNLESS NEW EVIDENCE IS REVEALED, BUT ASSUMING NONE NO ONE THINK HE BROKE THE LAW BY LEGALLY CARRYING A WEAPON)

2. THE QUESTION IS MENTAL STATE AND INTENT. IF ONE IS PART OF AN ORGANIZED, ANTI-GOVERNMENT MILITIA AND BRINGS A WEAPON WITH MULTIPLE MAGAZINES WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT REVEALS ABOUT HIS MENTAL STATE AND INTENT? PLUS IT SHOWS THE GUY CLEARLY IS A MORON TO BRING A WEAPON KNOWING HE WAS GOING TO TERRORIZE LAW ENFORCMENT.

So either he is just a genuine idiot or was planning on provoking violence for which he would need a weapon - with a lot of bullets. This is really not complicated.

---

You are right. It is not. Carrying 2 mags is not a sign his mental state. It is quite normal for people that carry to have extra magazines with them.

Also, intent. So, how are you proving intent? Video taping? Protesting? Would breaking and climbing through a window be intent?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Fre3dombear 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.

---

I wonder if one was chambered

---

Even if it was, that is legal. Possessing a firearm legally is not probable cause. I thought you guys were 2A fans? You are saying the Government has the right to:

A -Curtail legal gun ownership and carrying.
B- Carrying gives the Government the right to arrest you and treat you as a threat?
C- Carrying 2 mags is probable cause?

You guys really going down that road? I didn't know this Board was such Federal Government fans...

---

Let me try and explain this to you one more time but more slowly. It is actually very simple.

1. NO ONE DISPUTES HE HAD A LEGAL RIGHT TO CARRY A WEAPON (UNLESS NEW EVIDENCE IS REVEALED, BUT ASSUMING NONE NO ONE THINK HE BROKE THE LAW BY LEGALLY CARRYING A WEAPON)

2. THE QUESTION IS MENTAL STATE AND INTENT. IF ONE IS PART OF AN ORGANIZED, ANTI-GOVERNMENT MILITIA AND BRINGS A WEAPON WITH MULTIPLE MAGAZINES WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT REVEALS ABOUT HIS MENTAL STATE AND INTENT? PLUS IT SHOWS THE GUY CLEARLY IS A MORON TO BRING A WEAPON KNOWING HE WAS GOING TO TERRORIZE LAW ENFORCMENT.

So either he is just a genuine idiot or was planning on provoking violence for which he would need a weapon - with a lot of bullets. This is really not complicated.

---

You are right. It is not. Carrying 2 mags is not a sign his mental state. It is quite normal for people that carry to have extra magazines with them.

Also, intent. So, how are you proving intent? Video taping? Protesting? Would breaking and climbing through a window be intent?

---

Interfering with law enforcement. That was intent and his decision to arm himself to do so speaks volumes to normal people.

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Fre3dombear 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.

---

I wonder if one was chambered

---

Even if it was, that is legal. Possessing a firearm legally is not probable cause. I thought you guys were 2A fans? You are saying the Government has the right to:

A -Curtail legal gun ownership and carrying.
B- Carrying gives the Government the right to arrest you and treat you as a threat?
C- Carrying 2 mags is probable cause?

You guys really going down that road? I didn't know this Board was such Federal Government fans...

---

Let me try and explain this to you one more time but more slowly. It is actually very simple.

1. NO ONE DISPUTES HE HAD A LEGAL RIGHT TO CARRY A WEAPON (UNLESS NEW EVIDENCE IS REVEALED, BUT ASSUMING NONE NO ONE THINK HE BROKE THE LAW BY LEGALLY CARRYING A WEAPON)

2. THE QUESTION IS MENTAL STATE AND INTENT. IF ONE IS PART OF AN ORGANIZED, ANTI-GOVERNMENT MILITIA AND BRINGS A WEAPON WITH MULTIPLE MAGAZINES WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT REVEALS ABOUT HIS MENTAL STATE AND INTENT? PLUS IT SHOWS THE GUY CLEARLY IS A MORON TO BRING A WEAPON KNOWING HE WAS GOING TO TERRORIZE LAW ENFORCMENT.

So either he is just a genuine idiot or was planning on provoking violence for which he would need a weapon - with a lot of bullets. This is really not complicated.

---

You are right. It is not. Carrying 2 mags is not a sign his mental state. It is quite normal for people that carry to have extra magazines with them.

Also, intent. So, how are you proving intent? Video taping? Protesting? Would breaking and climbing through a window be intent?

---

Interfering with law enforcement. That was intent and his decision to arm himself to do so speaks volumes to normal people.

---

Funny, what type of law do you practice? Not criminal defense...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Fre3dombear 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.

---

I wonder if one was chambered

---

Even if it was, that is legal. Possessing a firearm legally is not probable cause. I thought you guys were 2A fans? You are saying the Government has the right to:

A -Curtail legal gun ownership and carrying.
B- Carrying gives the Government the right to arrest you and treat you as a threat?
C- Carrying 2 mags is probable cause?

You guys really going down that road? I didn't know this Board was such Federal Government fans...

---

Let me try and explain this to you one more time but more slowly. It is actually very simple.

1. NO ONE DISPUTES HE HAD A LEGAL RIGHT TO CARRY A WEAPON (UNLESS NEW EVIDENCE IS REVEALED, BUT ASSUMING NONE NO ONE THINK HE BROKE THE LAW BY LEGALLY CARRYING A WEAPON)

2. THE QUESTION IS MENTAL STATE AND INTENT. IF ONE IS PART OF AN ORGANIZED, ANTI-GOVERNMENT MILITIA AND BRINGS A WEAPON WITH MULTIPLE MAGAZINES WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT REVEALS ABOUT HIS MENTAL STATE AND INTENT? PLUS IT SHOWS THE GUY CLEARLY IS A MORON TO BRING A WEAPON KNOWING HE WAS GOING TO TERRORIZE LAW ENFORCMENT.

So either he is just a genuine idiot or was planning on provoking violence for which he would need a weapon - with a lot of bullets. This is really not complicated.

---

You are right. It is not. Carrying 2 mags is not a sign his mental state. It is quite normal for people that carry to have extra magazines with them.

Also, intent. So, how are you proving intent? Video taping? Protesting? Would breaking and climbing through a window be intent?

---

You're just being vapid at this point. So fine. If his holster had an extra magazine slot, fair enough. However, one has be been really daft or stupidly tribal to not glean how carrying a weapon to join an organized militia to interfere with law enforcement does not reveal intent.

Maybe reading from your LWNJ sources will be more helpful - go read what everyone wrote about Kyle Rittenhouse and maybe they can understand it for you.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Fre3dombear 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.

---

I wonder if one was chambered

---

Even if it was, that is legal. Possessing a firearm legally is not probable cause. I thought you guys were 2A fans? You are saying the Government has the right to:

A -Curtail legal gun ownership and carrying.
B- Carrying gives the Government the right to arrest you and treat you as a threat?
C- Carrying 2 mags is probable cause?

You guys really going down that road? I didn't know this Board was such Federal Government fans...

---

Let me try and explain this to you one more time but more slowly. It is actually very simple.

1. NO ONE DISPUTES HE HAD A LEGAL RIGHT TO CARRY A WEAPON (UNLESS NEW EVIDENCE IS REVEALED, BUT ASSUMING NONE NO ONE THINK HE BROKE THE LAW BY LEGALLY CARRYING A WEAPON)

2. THE QUESTION IS MENTAL STATE AND INTENT. IF ONE IS PART OF AN ORGANIZED, ANTI-GOVERNMENT MILITIA AND BRINGS A WEAPON WITH MULTIPLE MAGAZINES WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT REVEALS ABOUT HIS MENTAL STATE AND INTENT? PLUS IT SHOWS THE GUY CLEARLY IS A MORON TO BRING A WEAPON KNOWING HE WAS GOING TO TERRORIZE LAW ENFORCMENT.

So either he is just a genuine idiot or was planning on provoking violence for which he would need a weapon - with a lot of bullets. This is really not complicated.

---

You are right. It is not. Carrying 2 mags is not a sign his mental state. It is quite normal for people that carry to have extra magazines with them.

Also, intent. So, how are you proving intent? Video taping? Protesting? Would breaking and climbing through a window be intent?

---

Interfering with law enforcement. That was intent and his decision to arm himself to do so speaks volumes to normal people.

---

Funny, what type of law do you practice? Not criminal defense...

---

I don't have to have a pilot's license to see you've crashed your plane into the damned mountain, here.

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Fre3dombear 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.

---

I wonder if one was chambered

---

Even if it was, that is legal. Possessing a firearm legally is not probable cause. I thought you guys were 2A fans? You are saying the Government has the right to:

A -Curtail legal gun ownership and carrying.
B- Carrying gives the Government the right to arrest you and treat you as a threat?
C- Carrying 2 mags is probable cause?

You guys really going down that road? I didn't know this Board was such Federal Government fans...

---

Let me try and explain this to you one more time but more slowly. It is actually very simple.

1. NO ONE DISPUTES HE HAD A LEGAL RIGHT TO CARRY A WEAPON (UNLESS NEW EVIDENCE IS REVEALED, BUT ASSUMING NONE NO ONE THINK HE BROKE THE LAW BY LEGALLY CARRYING A WEAPON)

2. THE QUESTION IS MENTAL STATE AND INTENT. IF ONE IS PART OF AN ORGANIZED, ANTI-GOVERNMENT MILITIA AND BRINGS A WEAPON WITH MULTIPLE MAGAZINES WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT REVEALS ABOUT HIS MENTAL STATE AND INTENT? PLUS IT SHOWS THE GUY CLEARLY IS A MORON TO BRING A WEAPON KNOWING HE WAS GOING TO TERRORIZE LAW ENFORCMENT.

So either he is just a genuine idiot or was planning on provoking violence for which he would need a weapon - with a lot of bullets. This is really not complicated.

---

You are right. It is not. Carrying 2 mags is not a sign his mental state. It is quite normal for people that carry to have extra magazines with them.

Also, intent. So, how are you proving intent? Video taping? Protesting? Would breaking and climbing through a window be intent?

---

Interfering with law enforcement. That was intent and his decision to arm himself to do so speaks volumes to normal people.

---

Funny, what type of law do you practice? Not criminal defense...

---

I don't have to have a pilot's license to see you've crashed your plane into the damned mountain, here.

---

I am pretty confident I am not the one flying into a damn mountain... Especially if I am on the other side of you.

Just curious how many Criminal Defense attorneys have you talked to about this shooting?

Why are we supporting people who are opposing federal orders?

Wangchung said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Boot licking is en vogue on the R&P board of late.

---

They taste the leather on their tongue but it's different that the taste of ass they're used to.

---

Just like your mother is used to tasting homeless men's dick cheese in her efforts to raise crack money.

---

Your momma got good mouth skin. Ask her about me.

Some recommended reading: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992

The gist of it: why does conflict persist over societal risks when there is clear, compelling, and widely available scientific evidence against it.

Two reasons:

1) people lack the cognitive ability to understand science
2) people with sufficient cognitive ability to understand science "shut off" their cognition when evaluating something that is at odds with their identity

And it's been widely proven that a person's chosen political identify supersedes almost all else.

I present to you the MAGA movement in a nutshell. Either too dumb to understand, or turn their brains off because it contradicts their chosen identity. Most of those on this board fall into camp 2, but there are a handful in camp 1.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Some recommended reading: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992

The gist of it: why does conflict persist over societal risks when there is clear, compelling, and widely available scientific evidence against it.

Two reasons:

1) people lack the cognitive ability to understand science
2) people with sufficient cognitive ability to understand science "shut off" their cognition when evaluating something that is at odds with their identity

And it's been widely proven that a person's chosen political identify supersedes almost all else.

I present to you the MAGA movement in a nutshell. Either too dumb to understand, or turn their brains off because it contradicts their chosen identity. Most of those on this board fall into camp 2, but there are a handful in camp 1.

---

Yet it's you stupid twats that are out getting yourselves shot by police...repeatedly... over your political ideology. Once again the left projects on the right exactly what the left is doing.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Some recommended reading: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992

The gist of it: why does conflict persist over societal risks when there is clear, compelling, and widely available scientific evidence against it.

Two reasons:

1) people lack the cognitive ability to understand science
2) people with sufficient cognitive ability to understand science "shut off" their cognition when evaluating something that is at odds with their identity

And it's been widely proven that a person's chosen political identify supersedes almost all else.

I present to you the MAGA movement in a nutshell. Either too dumb to understand, or turn their brains off because it contradicts their chosen identity. Most of those on this board fall into camp 2, but there are a handful in camp 1.

---

An interesting paper that helps to understand virtue signaling of privileged white women.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Some recommended reading: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992

The gist of it: why does conflict persist over societal risks when there is clear, compelling, and widely available scientific evidence against it.

Two reasons:

1) people lack the cognitive ability to understand science
2) people with sufficient cognitive ability to understand science "shut off" their cognition when evaluating something that is at odds with their identity

And it's been widely proven that a person's chosen political identify supersedes almost all else.

I present to you the MAGA movement in a nutshell. Either too dumb to understand, or turn their brains off because it contradicts their chosen identity. Most of those on this board fall into camp 2, but there are a handful in camp 1.

---

An interesting paper that helps to understand virtue signaling of privileged white women.

---

There is also a lot of cognitive dissonance going on with Conservatives.

The true MAGA are Authoritative in nature, so they go along with whatever their leader says. They are good with everything.

The Independents voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils and can't reconcile what is going on, but they have to agree because the alternative is worse. Which is causing the dissonance, trying to reconcile the two is tough.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Some recommended reading: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992

The gist of it: why does conflict persist over societal risks when there is clear, compelling, and widely available scientific evidence against it.

Two reasons:

1) people lack the cognitive ability to understand science
2) people with sufficient cognitive ability to understand science "shut off" their cognition when evaluating something that is at odds with their identity

And it's been widely proven that a person's chosen political identify supersedes almost all else.

I present to you the MAGA movement in a nutshell. Either too dumb to understand, or turn their brains off because it contradicts their chosen identity. Most of those on this board fall into camp 2, but there are a handful in camp 1.

---

An interesting paper that helps to understand virtue signaling of privileged white women.

---

There is also a lot of cognitive dissonance going on with Conservatives.

The true MAGA are Authoritative in nature, so they go along with whatever their leader says. They are good with everything.

The Independents voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils and can't reconcile what is going on, but they have to agree because the alternative is worse. Which is causing the dissonance, trying to reconcile the two is tough.

---

I would ask you specific questions, but we all have seen how that is your Kryptonite. That's why so many of your LWNJ Talking Points are so easily defeated because you use these broad, emotional claims that easily fall apart under the most basic scrutiny. I will give an example below:

1. For your first claim about conservatives and cognitive dissonance, you may be right. Give me three examples.

2. Define "true MAGA." Is there a membership roll? Is there an annual meeting? How does one join? Does one pay dues?

3. Define authoritative? What do you mean when you use this word?

4. True MAGA" is authoritative: okay. Where is its political platform? Assuming if you answer #2 then this is easy. What tenets of that platform are authoritative? What policies has it implemented that are uniquely authoritative?

5. Assuming you can answer 1-4, is can you share evidence that MAGA is "good with everything" and are they more "good with everything" that other groups? What makes them more "good with everything" than say another similar group - what evidence supports said claim?

As I noted, you won't answer these questions because you never do. The best case is you likely with throw out more assertions without evidence and claim you answered.

The difference between us is that I can always answer specifics and do not run from them. I also do not make claims without evidence, and when I am wrong I apologize, note, and change my opinion. My principles guide my opinions not tribalism, so my beliefs can hold up to scrutiny and simple questions even if folks disagree with me. But alas. Self-awareness is valuable and projection is very real.

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

Bingo

All very true

---

The video evidence may support a variant explanation for the initial shot = accidental discharge by the officer who secured the weapon. That would explain the unanimous reaction of the other officers to disengage, draw, fire. If so, it's also a justified shooting.


Time will tell.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

Bingo

All very true

---

The video evidence may support a variant explanation for the initial shot = accidental discharge by the officer who secured the weapon. That would explain the unanimous reaction of the other officers to disengage, draw, fire. If so, it's also a justified shooting.

---

Wrong, and terrifyingly so. At best it might be reckless or negligent.