Harrison Bergeron said:

---

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.

---

As usual, you put up loaded questions or that can't be answered easily and you will attack the source, but this is what you will focus on for the remainder of this thread. It also allows you to dictate the conversation going forward, we won't be discussing the ICE actions in MN. It is your schtick. Not wasting time.

Here is the Platform. Many are having issues reconciling the Platform with HOW they are doing it. You want any more, look it up. There are no shortage of studies.


Platform | Donald J. Trump

Lots of emotional noise here, including claims about the Constitution. Occurs to me that there is an investigation into the shooting, and the officers involved have a right to presumption of innocence.

Funny how the Left ignores that part, and so many politicians on the Left are using provocative words like "murder" and "execution".

Not just people being angry on Internet boards, elected officials.

Nothing from our leftist members about that little constitutional issue, though.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

You cannot be this stupid.

---

Not stupid enough to unload my weapon on a defenseless person because I heard what might or might not be a gunshot. I realize that may be a powerful instinct in the moment, but they should be trained to counteract it. At best it's another example of piss-poor training, not an objectively reasonable shoot.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

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.

---

As usual, you put up loaded questions or that can't be answered easily and you will attack the source, but this is what you will focus on for the remainder of this thread. It also allows you to dictate the conversation going forward, we won't be discussing the ICE actions in MN. It is your schtick. Not wasting time.

Here is the Platform. Many are having issues reconciling the Platform with HOW they are doing it. You want any more, look it up. There are no shortage of studies.


Platform | Donald J. Trump

---

I do appreciate you constantly providing my point.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

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.

---

As usual, you put up loaded questions or that can't be answered easily and you will attack the source, but this is what you will focus on for the remainder of this thread. It also allows you to dictate the conversation going forward, we won't be discussing the ICE actions in MN. It is your schtick. Not wasting time.

Here is the Platform. Many are having issues reconciling the Platform with HOW they are doing it. You want any more, look it up. There are no shortage of studies.


Platform | Donald J. Trump

---

I do appreciate you constantly providing my point.

---

Let's make a deal. I will ignore you. And you ignore me. You can play your games with someone else.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Lots of emotional noise here, including claims about the Constitution. Occurs to me that there is an investigation into the shooting, and the officers involved have a right to presumption of innocence.

Funny how the Left ignores that part, and so many politicians on the Left are using provocative words like "murder" and "execution".

Not just people being angry on Internet boards, elected officials.

Nothing from our leftist members about that little constitutional issue, though.

---

May explain LWNJ's reaction from another thread.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

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.

---

As usual, you put up loaded questions or that can't be answered easily and you will attack the source, but this is what you will focus on for the remainder of this thread. It also allows you to dictate the conversation going forward, we won't be discussing the ICE actions in MN. It is your schtick. Not wasting time.

Here is the Platform. Many are having issues reconciling the Platform with HOW they are doing it. You want any more, look it up. There are no shortage of studies.


Platform | Donald J. Trump

---

I do appreciate you constantly providing my point.

---

Let's make a deal. I will ignore you. And you ignore me. You can play your games with someone else.

---

I never feel the need to run and hide from discussions; but you're welcome to do what you want. The whole board sees I called exactly what you could do.

Pro Tip: don't make statements you cannot back up and you won't get butthurt when called on it. Emerge from the world of tribal bogeymen and black and white absolutism into reality.

Oldbear83 said:

---

180 degrees wrong.

Democrats need to stop telling groups to provoke violent conflicts.

There is no "right" to obstruct cops from doing their job.

March around with signs, sure. Blow whistles and chant slogans, fine.

Drive at cops, is creating a disaster. And bringing a gun,much less extra ammunition, is incendiary and caused two deaths.

---

You are wrong. It is both.

There is blame on both sides. But when a Federal Agency is in conflict with citizens, it is the Agency that needs to back off and re-asses. Why? Because the Government is only here to serve and protect the citizens.

Those that break the law arrest. But, if it is reaching a point where Agents are having to shoot people, it is up to t he Government to step back. At least that is what our founding Principles say.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

180 degrees wrong.

Democrats need to stop telling groups to provoke violent conflicts.

There is no "right" to obstruct cops from doing their job.

March around with signs, sure. Blow whistles and chant slogans, fine.

Drive at cops, is creating a disaster. And bringing a gun,much less extra ammunition, is incendiary and caused two deaths.

---

You are wrong. It is both.

There is blame on both sides. But when a Federal Agency is in conflict with citizens, it is the Agency that needs to back off and re-asses. Why? Because the Government is only here to serve and protect the citizens.

Those that break the law arrest. But, if it is reaching a point where Agents are having to shoot people, it is up to t he Government to step back. At least that is what our founding Principles say.

---

You don't believe this. I could prove it to you but you will ignore it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

You cannot be this stupid.

---

Not stupid enough to unload my weapon on a defenseless person because I heard what might or might not be a gunshot. I realize that may be a powerful instinct in the moment, but they should be trained to counteract it. At best it's another example of piss-poor training, not an objectively reasonable shoot.

---

that would be true if standing on a streetcorner reading a newspaper. but that wasn't the scenario. It was a desperate hand to hand struggle between an armed individual and 5 armed officers. In that situation it's hard to devise a scenario where the discharge of a weapon would NOT be a threat to the officers. Either the suspect fired at an officer, or an officer fired at the suspect because he detected a deadly threat.

Of course The View displays the greatest TDS ... suddenly they all love guns and want everyone packing.

This level of stupidity and hypocrisy is destroying America.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

180 degrees wrong.

Democrats need to stop telling groups to provoke violent conflicts.

There is no "right" to obstruct cops from doing their job.

March around with signs, sure. Blow whistles and chant slogans, fine.

Drive at cops, is creating a disaster. And bringing a gun,much less extra ammunition, is incendiary and caused two deaths.

---

You are wrong. It is both.

There is blame on both sides. But when a Federal Agency is in conflict with citizens, it is the Agency that needs to back off and re-asses..

---

Wow that is the standard now?

So if any group of activists decide to start a campaign of harassment and intimidation against any Federal agency… the agency must then back off?

Besides giving the whip hand to extremist groups…what about the rights of the majority of Americans who want to see the laws enforced and illegal aliens deported?

The Federal government is also supposed to be protecting & serving the citizens who obey the law and want to see it enforced.

Giving a heckler veto to a radical minority willing to use thuggish street tactics would defeat Democracy itself.

---

Yep. It's the standard as long as Trump is in office. Those rioters have the right to riot. Property owners have a duty to board up & shut up. States and cities have no responsibility, morally or legally, to cooperate with federal deportation proceedings. And by all means, whenever Trump policy meets with resistance, he has a duty to withdraw.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

You cannot be this stupid.

---

Not stupid enough to unload my weapon on a defenseless person because I heard what might or might not be a gunshot. I realize that may be a powerful instinct in the moment, but they should be trained to counteract it. At best it's another example of piss-poor training, not an objectively reasonable shoot.

---

that would be true if standing on a streetcorner reading a newspaper. but that wasn't the scenario. It was a desperate hand to hand struggle between an armed individual and 5 armed officers. In that situation it's hard to devise a scenario where the discharge of a weapon would NOT be a threat to the officers. Either the suspect fired at an officer, or an officer fired at the suspect because he detected a deadly threat.

---

Uh, what about the scenario that actually happened? He was disarmed before any shots were fired.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

You cannot be this stupid.

---

Not stupid enough to unload my weapon on a defenseless person because I heard what might or might not be a gunshot. I realize that may be a powerful instinct in the moment, but they should be trained to counteract it. At best it's another example of piss-poor training, not an objectively reasonable shoot.

---

that would be true if standing on a streetcorner reading a newspaper. but that wasn't the scenario. It was a desperate hand to hand struggle between an armed individual and 5 armed officers. In that situation it's hard to devise a scenario where the discharge of a weapon would NOT be a threat to the officers. Either the suspect fired at an officer, or an officer fired at the suspect because he detected a deadly threat.

---

Uh, what about the scenario that actually happened? He was disarmed before any shots were fired.

---

I don't think there is a single poster here who has not said there should be anything other than a full investigation.

It's always a major deal when an unarmed citizen is killed by Federal law enforcement.

But at the very same time people have a right to point out that making the choice to carrying a gun while you go around looking to get into voluntary confrontations with law enforcement is a very very foolish thing to do.

Other than driving drunk on the highway going 70 mph…I can't think of something more dangerous than being armed and joining a mob of people who set out to hunt down Federal officers & engage in a long list of up close direct harassment activities….something is bound to go horribly wrong at some point…life ending decisions get made in split seconds.

It doesn't help that ICE, especially Bovino, has a documented credibility issue.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

You cannot be this stupid.

---

Not stupid enough to unload my weapon on a defenseless person because I heard what might or might not be a gunshot. I realize that may be a powerful instinct in the moment, but they should be trained to counteract it. At best it's another example of piss-poor training, not an objectively reasonable shoot.

---

that would be true if standing on a streetcorner reading a newspaper. but that wasn't the scenario. It was a desperate hand to hand struggle between an armed individual and 5 armed officers. In that situation it's hard to devise a scenario where the discharge of a weapon would NOT be a threat to the officers. Either the suspect fired at an officer, or an officer fired at the suspect because he detected a deadly threat.

---

Uh, what about the scenario that actually happened? He was disarmed before any shots were fired.

---

that's been alleged but not proven, particularly on the question of when he was disarmed and how how many officers (if any) knew he had been disarmed, which are highly material questions. And conveniently you also ignore another relevant scenario - a suspect who attempts to commandeer an officer's service weapon, in which case deadly force is authorized. We don't have any evidence that is an issue here. We also don't have any evidence it isn't.

The scenario I'm suggesting is that an officer found and retrieved the weapon while Pretti was struggling with officers, and in the process of leaving the struggle had an accidental discharge (setting in motion an unforunate series of events). The pistol in question has a reputation for those, i.e. it is reproducible.

But never fear, we know you will run with the scenario which fits your worldview.

---

I don't need to run with anything except the video evidence. Any struggle that may have happened (which is a stretch to begin with) was over by that point.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

You cannot be this stupid.

---

Not stupid enough to unload my weapon on a defenseless person because I heard what might or might not be a gunshot. I realize that may be a powerful instinct in the moment, but they should be trained to counteract it. At best it's another example of piss-poor training, not an objectively reasonable shoot.

---

that would be true if standing on a streetcorner reading a newspaper. but that wasn't the scenario. It was a desperate hand to hand struggle between an armed individual and 5 armed officers. In that situation it's hard to devise a scenario where the discharge of a weapon would NOT be a threat to the officers. Either the suspect fired at an officer, or an officer fired at the suspect because he detected a deadly threat.

---

Uh, what about the scenario that actually happened? He was disarmed before any shots were fired.

---

that's been alleged but not proven, particularly on the question of when he was disarmed and how how many officers (if any) knew he had been disarmed, which are highly material questions. And conveniently you also ignore another relevant scenario - a suspect who attempts to commandeer an officer's service weapon, in which case deadly force is authorized. We don't have any evidence that is an issue here. We also don't have any evidence it isn't.

The scenario I'm suggesting is that an officer found and retrieved the weapon while Pretti was struggling with officers, and in the process of leaving the struggle had an accidental discharge (setting in motion an unforunate series of events). The pistol in question has a reputation for those, i.e. it is reproducible.

But never fear, we know you will run with the scenario which fits your worldview.

---

I don't need to run with anything except the video evidence. Any struggle that may have happened (which is a stretch to begin with) was over by that point.

---

doesn't look like that to me.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

180 degrees wrong.

Democrats need to stop telling groups to provoke violent conflicts.

There is no "right" to obstruct cops from doing their job.

March around with signs, sure. Blow whistles and chant slogans, fine.

Drive at cops, is creating a disaster. And bringing a gun,much less extra ammunition, is incendiary and caused two deaths.

---

You are wrong. It is both.

There is blame on both sides. But when a Federal Agency is in conflict with citizens, it is the Agency that needs to back off and re-asses..

---

Wow that is the standard now?

So if any group of activists decide to start a campaign of harassment and intimidation against any Federal agency… the agency must then back off?

Besides giving the whip hand to extremist groups…what about the rights of the majority of Americans who want to see the laws enforced and illegal aliens deported?

The Federal government is also supposed to be protecting & serving the citizens who obey the law and want to see it enforced.

Giving a heckler veto to a radical minority willing to use thuggish street tactics would defeat Democracy itself.

---

.

New standard? No it has always been. Id you are shooting citizens something is wrong.

So your position is the citizens need to succumb to the Federal Government. 2nd Amend doesnt count If they say so. It is the protestors fault they got shot. Interesting, very Stalinesque.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

180 degrees wrong.

Democrats need to stop telling groups to provoke violent conflicts.

There is no "right" to obstruct cops from doing their job.

March around with signs, sure. Blow whistles and chant slogans, fine.

Drive at cops, is creating a disaster. And bringing a gun,much less extra ammunition, is incendiary and caused two deaths.

---

You are wrong. It is both.

There is blame on both sides. But when a Federal Agency is in conflict with citizens, it is the Agency that needs to back off and re-asses..

---

Wow that is the standard now?

So if any group of activists decide to start a campaign of harassment and intimidation against any Federal agency… the agency must then back off?

Besides giving the whip hand to extremist groups…what about the rights of the majority of Americans who want to see the laws enforced and illegal aliens deported?

The Federal government is also supposed to be protecting & serving the citizens who obey the law and want to see it enforced.

Giving a heckler veto to a radical minority willing to use thuggish street tactics would defeat Democracy itself.

---

.

New standard? No it has always been. Id you are shooting citizens something is wrong.

So your position is the citizens need to succumb to the Federal Government. 2nd Amend doesnt count If they say so. It is the protestors fault they got shot. Interesting, very Stalinesque.

---

So you blame the Capitol Police for the death of unarmed Ashli Babbitt?

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?

---

Yep, from what I've seen, I don't see this as warranted, though it's likely something that wouldn't result in a judgment. When just one officer yells that he has a gun, all officers aren't required to see it. They can operate under the assumption that the dude is potentially a threat. So when he was disarmed it's not obvious me that the officer yelled that he got Perriti's weapon. So the other officers were still under the impression that he had a gun. So maybe whatever is in his right hand or maybe he reaches towards his belt, whatever it was in that second leads the officer to fire.
Terrible situation caused by terrible lefties amping up and mobilizing against Leo's.
In armed conflicts, mistakes get made, and unfortunately someone's life was lost. Hard for me to justify the shooting, yet I understand that the officer could have felt threatened given the overall situation and the fact that peritti interjected himself into this with a weapon.

I'm looking forward to seeing the investigation results. Hoping it's fair and impartial.

But I guess we can all expect that the liberals will now be apologizing for the January 6 murder of an unarmed, non threatening lady.

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

---

1. He had a right to carry that weapon and he left it holstered the entire time

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


3. This was a murder. .

---

I agree with a lot of your points and concerns. And of course we are all just engaging in speculation based on a short video. But I have to push back on these points.

1. No poster has said he didn't have a perfect right to carry a gun. (They have only questioned the wisdom of doing so in this case)

2. We have no idea if all activists were blowing whistles. For all we know he was the leader of the group directly street operations for hours. And for all we know he was unaffiliated and just arrived on the scene 5 mins before.

We just don't know

3. No, it might be murder. Right now it's a homicide. Murder usually involves premeditation, planning, intent

This could be murder.

It could also be a justifiable shooting if the objective reasonableness standard holds and the officer thought he had a gun and was trying to shoot other officers.

[The U.S. Supreme Court dictates whether the use of deadly force by law enforcement is constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment. It is based on objective reasonableness, meaning the officer's actions are judged by what a "reasonable officer on the scene" would do, rather than with 20/20 hindsight]

That is what we have a legal system for and jury trials

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...

---

I think my point on what this fool did is pretty clear and where it landed him.

Obviously it one was chambered easier for a round to get fired when it was grabbed etc. his choice of course and not illegal to do

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?

---

One thing is clear, this insurrectionist / militant militia guy had more guns and bullets on him than all the j6ers combined.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Lots of emotional noise here, including claims about the Constitution. Occurs to me that there is an investigation into the shooting, and the officers involved have a right to presumption of innocence.

Funny how the Left ignores that part, and so many politicians on the Left are using provocative words like "murder" and "execution".

Not just people being angry on Internet boards, elected officials.

Nothing from our leftist members about that little constitutional issue, though.

---

Are you saying try him? He has immunity, if charged that means he was acting outside of doing his job or did not do his job properly? I think there will be an investigation, but I don't think the Agent will take the fall. It will not be referred to trial.

This is a failure of leadership. Those agents are being put in a bad situation and they are being instructed what the uniform of the day is and the load out. This is what happens when you put too many in one place. I don't blame the Agent, I blame Noem and Chief of Operations.

They need to back it down or there is going to be more of these shootings.

---

The guy thats taking the fall here has already fallen and now his only judge is God

While I want to
Hear and see more, what webhave is a guy blocking traffic in the street, gets involved in an altercation police (sic) are engaged in with someone else, has a loaded weapon on him ostensibly with one chambered, fights back (against armed po po (sic)) and resists, gun discharges and ends up dead.

How is this not his fault? Or Obama and bidens fault for creating this 5 alarm blaze in america and anyone that voted to support the invasion of the 3rd world into america and take tax payer funds, jobs, food and housing?

Are you saying any objective person should put on sack cloth and ashes and lament for weeks this absolute embiciles decisions? Did he deserve it? Nope. Did that girl deserve getting her throat severed on the subway or 100,000 other examples? Nope. And they didn't even do anything at all!!!!!!