BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear 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?

---

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.

---

Yes, how weird and ironic that the left blames Ashli Babbit's death on those who riled her up to unlawfully protest... but in this case that level of discernment has completely disappeared.

The opportunistic left is trying to use this "crisis" as evidence of the "danger" of having ICE operations in their city. But THEY are the ones who are creating the crisis and all the danger. They relentlessly abuse the officers until there's a response, and then they just show and politicize the response. I liken it to a scenario where a neighborhood tries to have someone's "dangerous" dog removed, so they constantly protest in front of the dog, yelling at it, throwing things at it, blowing whistles that damage the dog's hearing,and poking and prodding at it all day. The dog initially does nothing. But after days of relentless agitation and physical abuse, the dog finally bites one of the protesters, and then the refrain is "SEE! SEE! See how the dog is dangerous and needs to be removed??!!"

It's absolutely ridiculous, the suggestion that ICE should pull out of Minnesota because of this. That's incentivizing lawlessness to achieve political ends. The way to end the "danger" of ICE being there is to remove those protesters who are creating all the danger in the first place. If anything, I fully support doubling the ICE presence there and have a bus that goes behind them, where they can throw everyone who is impeding them and take them to jail. No questions - if you're yelling, cursing, spitting, and blowing whistles in the officer's face or blocking their path, in the bus you go even if they have to physically throw you in there. Full immunity for the officers in doing this. I've had enough of these people.

---

I'd say you should move to Afghanistan, but I'm not sure it would be authoritarian enough for you.

---

Calling the enforcement of democratic law "authoritarian" pretty much sums up where you stand.

---

Throwing people in jail for protesting isn't "democratic law."

---

If they were just lawfully protesting, then you'd be right.

---

Then I guess I don't understand why you want to drive around throwing people in the back of a bus whether they're acting lawfully or not.

---

So, be clear: you think it's "acting lawfully" to antagonize, agitate, abuse, and impede law officers who are lawfully performing their duties?

---

Not necessarily. If you were just talking about arresting people for unlawful conduct, I don't think anyone would disagree. But it didn't sound that way, especially since you were talking about granting "full immunity" to the officers herding people into buses for little or no reason. If anything it sounds like you want more lawless behavior from the police.

---

No, there you go again with either your stupidity or dishonesty. I said their immunity was related to throwing people who were impeding them in the way described into the bus, not for "little or no reason".

Seriously, does your dishonesty and/or stupidity ever stop? How do you have no shame?

---

Yelling as part of a protest is not illegal. There's nothing wrong with my pointing that out, especially when you're talking about indiscriminately throwing people into buses and carting them off to jail for exercising their constitutional rights.

If you want to walk back your position because you misspoke or got carried away, that's fine. I'm just curious how much of a totalitarian you're actually wanting to be.

---

Did I say only yelling was illegal and grounds for arrest?

---

You tell me. Is yelling necessary but not sufficient? Is whistle-blowing dispositive? You're the one setting standards for punishing legal protest, so please have at it.

---

No, you answer the question. You're the one asserting that I said that yelling was grounds for arrest. Is that what I said, yes or no?

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryIf they were just lawfully protesting, then you'd be right. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Then I guess I don't understand why you want to drive around throwing people in the back of a bus whether they're acting lawfully or not.

---

So, be clear: you think it's "acting lawfully" to antagonize, agitate, abuse, and impede law officers who are lawfully performing their duties?

---

Not necessarily. If you were just talking about arresting people for unlawful conduct, I don't think anyone would disagree. But it didn't sound that way, especially since you were talking about granting "full immunity" to the officers herding people into buses for little or no reason. If anything it sounds like you want more lawless behavior from the police.

---

No, there you go again with either your stupidity or dishonesty. I said their immunity was related to throwing people who were impeding them in the way described into the bus, not for "little or no reason".

Seriously, does your dishonesty and/or stupidity ever stop? How do you have no shame?

---

Yelling as part of a protest is not illegal. There's nothing wrong with my pointing that out, especially when you're talking about indiscriminately throwing people into buses and carting them off to jail for exercising their constitutional rights.

If you want to walk back your position because you misspoke or got carried away, that's fine. I'm just curious how much of a totalitarian you're actually wanting to be.

---

Did I say only yelling was illegal and grounds for arrest?

---

You tell me. Is yelling necessary but not sufficient? Is whistle-blowing dispositive? You're the one setting standards for punishing legal protest, so please have at it.

---

No, you answer the question. You're the one asserting that I said that yelling was grounds for arrest. Is that what I said, yes or no?

---

I think so.

---

Quote?

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

---

It's odd that suddenly the radical LWNJs are aggressively pro-Second Amendment. It's just funny to reach the mental gymnastics of these people. You don't take a gun with multiple magazines to interfere with law enforcement if you're not looking for trouble. It definitely speaks to his state of mind.

---

303Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So you want to pretend this guy was 'just there minding his own business'.

He made some very poor decisions, and it's tragic but on him.

Maybe it's just me, but in his situation I would at least have told the cops I had a gun when we first talked, but really would not have brought a gun to that place, and frankly would not have organized a criminal resistance movement, but that's done now and blaming the cops won't bring him back.

---

Never said he was minding his own business. Next.

He made some poor decisions. None of which should have resulted in his death.

Again, was he supposed to tell the ICE agents he was armed before he was pepper sprayed when stepping between a woman that agent had just shoved to the ground, or after?
In Texas, yes, at first point of contact. In MN, only if asked by LE.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/in-which-states-must-you-notify-an-officer-youre-carrying/
In the videos it looks like at least one ICE agent has a weapon drawn well before anyone saw his gun,
"before anyone saw his gun" is not in evidence. We do not know what any of the officers saw, heard, were told, felt on Pretti, etc....

and remember, he never drew or brandished his firearm (which, again, he was in full legal possession of).
"Brandish" has a broader legal meaning than your argument assumes. I had a friend (RIP) who got arrested for brandishing a weapon during an argument with a neighbor. Friend had the big beer gut and wore 3xl t-shirts untucked all the time. The shirts amply covered his holstered concealed weapon. Somewhere during the argument, friend raised his arm up to point at the sky and for a brief moment, the weapon was partially visible. Neighbor called the cops. Friend got a ride. Beat the rap. Now, this was Texas. Might have turned out otherwise in a lot of other states.

What evidence do you have that he was/had organized a criminal resistance movement?
He clearly conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. 111. Other code violations are possible.
Is that with the same evidence bundle that gave Miller, Noem and others in the admin the basis to claim he was there with intent to commit mass murder of agents within minutes of the shooting?

You are right, blaming the ICE agents wont bring him back, and I dont wholly blame them. It is not wrong to say that state/local cooperation likely would have prevented this, but that unfairly absolves the federal government and ICE agents of their role. Tactics and training can be changed to fit situations, instead there has been nothing but the same thing in MN. On Satruday AM, the ICE agents involved had ample opportunity to move along and instead decided to pursue and engage 3 people on a icy road side, one of whom is now dead.

---

whiterock said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So you want to pretend this guy was 'just there minding his own business'.

He made some very poor decisions, and it's tragic but on him.

Maybe it's just me, but in his situation I would at least have told the cops I had a gun when we first talked, but really would not have brought a gun to that place, and frankly would not have organized a criminal resistance movement, but that's done now and blaming the cops won't bring him back.

---

Never said he was minding his own business. Next.

He made some poor decisions. None of which should have resulted in his death.

Again, was he supposed to tell the ICE agents he was armed before he was pepper sprayed when stepping between a woman that agent had just shoved to the ground, or after?
In Texas, yes, at first point of contact. In MN, only if asked by LE.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/in-which-states-must-you-notify-an-officer-youre-carrying/
In the videos it looks like at least one ICE agent has a weapon drawn well before anyone saw his gun,
"before anyone saw his gun" is not in evidence. We do not know what any of the officers saw, heard, were told, felt on Pretti, etc....

and remember, he never drew or brandished his firearm (which, again, he was in full legal possession of).
"Brandish" has a broader legal meaning than your argument assumes. I had a friend (RIP) who got arrested for brandishing a weapon during an argument with a neighbor. Friend had the big beer gut and wore 3xl t-shirts untucked all the time. The shirts amply covered his holstered concealed weapon. Somewhere during the argument, friend raised his arm up to point at the sky and for a brief moment, the weapon was partially visible. Neighbor called the cops. Friend got a ride. Beat the rap. Now, this was Texas. Might have turned out otherwise in a lot of other states.

What evidence do you have that he was/had organized a criminal resistance movement?
He clearly conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. 111. Other code violations are possible.
Is that with the same evidence bundle that gave Miller, Noem and others in the admin the basis to claim he was there with intent to commit mass murder of agents within minutes of the shooting?

You are right, blaming the ICE agents wont bring him back, and I dont wholly blame them. It is not wrong to say that state/local cooperation likely would have prevented this, but that unfairly absolves the federal government and ICE agents of their role. Tactics and training can be changed to fit situations, instead there has been nothing but the same thing in MN. On Satruday AM, the ICE agents involved had ample opportunity to move along and instead decided to pursue and engage 3 people on a icy road side, one of whom is now dead.

---

There are so ways this shooting can be defended as justifiable. For example: Let's say the Officer 1 who fired had been informed that Pretti was armed. So what if Pretti, while struggling with the officers, made a movement that O1 perceived an attempt do draw that weapon? What if the officer, knowing Pretti was armed, noticed that Pretti's holster was empty. Where did that gun go? (O1 pulls weapon,) O1 was unaware that the weapon had in fact been secured by Officer 2, and could have misperceived the accidental discharge by O2 as Pretti actually firing the weapon. And on and on and on.

You're overthinking it.
Pretti violated state law. (conceal carry without ID)
Pretti violated US law. (interference with law enforcement operations)
Pretti got into a fight with SIX police officers.
Pretti was armed.
What were the odds that nobody gets hurt in a scenario like that?

---

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.p

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

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU 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.p

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

---

I wish you would have been onboard a few years ago to see if you applied the same sttandards to Kyle Rittenhouse

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Harrison Bergeron 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.

---

It's odd that suddenly the radical LWNJs are aggressively pro-Second Amendment. It's just funny to reach the mental gymnastics of these people. You don't take a gun with multiple magazines to interfere with law enforcement if you're not looking for trouble. It definitely speaks to his state of mind.

---

Its funny in the same way Kash claims you cant be packing as you walk down the street, I know guys that wear guns to church, football games, pep rallies and Walmart. Is there a rule against walking down the street?

---

whiterock said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So you want to pretend this guy was 'just there minding his own business'.

He made some very poor decisions, and it's tragic but on him.

Maybe it's just me, but in his situation I would at least have told the cops I had a gun when we first talked, but really would not have brought a gun to that place, and frankly would not have organized a criminal resistance movement, but that's done now and blaming the cops won't bring him back.

---

Never said he was minding his own business. Next.

He made some poor decisions. None of which should have resulted in his death.

Again, was he supposed to tell the ICE agents he was armed before he was pepper sprayed when stepping between a woman that agent had just shoved to the ground, or after?
In Texas, yes, at first point of contact. In MN, only if asked by LE.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/in-which-states-must-you-notify-an-officer-youre-carrying/
In the videos it looks like at least one ICE agent has a weapon drawn well before anyone saw his gun,
"before anyone saw his gun" is not in evidence. We do not know what any of the officers saw, heard, were told, felt on Pretti, etc....

and remember, he never drew or brandished his firearm (which, again, he was in full legal possession of).
"Brandish" has a broader legal meaning than your argument assumes. I had a friend (RIP) who got arrested for brandishing a weapon during an argument with a neighbor. Friend had the big beer gut and wore 3xl t-shirts untucked all the time. The shirts amply covered his holstered concealed weapon. Somewhere during the argument, friend raised his arm up to point at the sky and for a brief moment, the weapon was partially visible. Neighbor called the cops. Friend got a ride. Beat the rap. Now, this was Texas. Might have turned out otherwise in a lot of other states.

What evidence do you have that he was/had organized a criminal resistance movement?
He clearly conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. 111. Other code violations are possible.
Is that with the same evidence bundle that gave Miller, Noem and others in the admin the basis to claim he was there with intent to commit mass murder of agents within minutes of the shooting?

You are right, blaming the ICE agents wont bring him back, and I dont wholly blame them. It is not wrong to say that state/local cooperation likely would have prevented this, but that unfairly absolves the federal government and ICE agents of their role. Tactics and training can be changed to fit situations, instead there has been nothing but the same thing in MN. On Satruday AM, the ICE agents involved had ample opportunity to move along and instead decided to pursue and engage 3 people on a icy road side, one of whom is now dead.

---

There are so ways this shooting can be defended as justifiable. For example: Let's say the Officer 1 who fired had been informed that Pretti was armed. So what if Pretti, while struggling with the officers, made a movement that O1 perceived an attempt do draw that weapon? What if the officer, knowing Pretti was armed, noticed that Pretti's holster was empty. Where did that gun go? (O1 pulls weapon,) O1 was unaware that the weapon had in fact been secured by Officer 2, and could have misperceived the accidental discharge by O2 as Pretti actually firing the weapon. And on and on and on.

You're overthinking it.
Pretti violated state law. (conceal carry without ID)
Pretti violated US law. (interference with law enforcement operations)
Pretti got into a fight with SIX police officers.
Pretti was armed.
What were the odds that nobody gets hurt in a scenario like that?

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So you want to pretend this guy was 'just there minding his own business'.

He made some very poor decisions, and it's tragic but on him.

Maybe it's just me, but in his situation I would at least have told the cops I had a gun when we first talked, but really would not have brought a gun to that place, and frankly would not have organized a criminal resistance movement, but that's done now and blaming the cops won't bring him back.

---

Never said he was minding his own business. Next.

He made some poor decisions. None of which should have resulted in his death.

Again, was he supposed to tell the ICE agents he was armed before he was pepper sprayed when stepping between a woman that agent had just shoved to the ground, or after?
In Texas, yes, at first point of contact. In MN, only if asked by LE.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/in-which-states-must-you-notify-an-officer-youre-carrying/
In the videos it looks like at least one ICE agent has a weapon drawn well before anyone saw his gun,
"before anyone saw his gun" is not in evidence. We do not know what any of the officers saw, heard, were told, felt on Pretti, etc....

and remember, he never drew or brandished his firearm (which, again, he was in full legal possession of).
"Brandish" has a broader legal meaning than your argument assumes. I had a friend (RIP) who got arrested for brandishing a weapon during an argument with a neighbor. Friend had the big beer gut and wore 3xl t-shirts untucked all the time. The shirts amply covered his holstered concealed weapon. Somewhere during the argument, friend raised his arm up to point at the sky and for a brief moment, the weapon was partially visible. Neighbor called the cops. Friend got a ride. Beat the rap. Now, this was Texas. Might have turned out otherwise in a lot of other states.

What evidence do you have that he was/had organized a criminal resistance movement?
He clearly conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. 111. Other code violations are possible.
Is that with the same evidence bundle that gave Miller, Noem and others in the admin the basis to claim he was there with intent to commit mass murder of agents within minutes of the shooting?

You are right, blaming the ICE agents wont bring him back, and I dont wholly blame them. It is not wrong to say that state/local cooperation likely would have prevented this, but that unfairly absolves the federal government and ICE agents of their role. Tactics and training can be changed to fit situations, instead there has been nothing but the same thing in MN. On Satruday AM, the ICE agents involved had ample opportunity to move along and instead decided to pursue and engage 3 people on a icy road side, one of whom is now dead.

---

There are so ways this shooting can be defended as justifiable. For example: Let's say the Officer 1 who fired had been informed that Pretti was armed. So what if Pretti, while struggling with the officers, made a movement that O1 perceived an attempt do draw that weapon? What if the officer, knowing Pretti was armed, noticed that Pretti's holster was empty. Where did that gun go? (O1 pulls weapon,) O1 was unaware that the weapon had in fact been secured by Officer 2, and could have misperceived the accidental discharge by O2 as Pretti actually firing the weapon. And on and on and on.

You're overthinking it.
Pretti violated state law. (conceal carry without ID)
Pretti violated US law. (interference with law enforcement operations)
Pretti got into a fight with SIX police officers.
Pretti was armed.
What were the odds that nobody gets hurt in a scenario like that?

---

So he should be murdered?

---

no one should be murdered. And neither Pretti nor Good were murdered. They were the victims of a justified police shooting.

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So you want to pretend this guy was 'just there minding his own business'.

He made some very poor decisions, and it's tragic but on him.

Maybe it's just me, but in his situation I would at least have told the cops I had a gun when we first talked, but really would not have brought a gun to that place, and frankly would not have organized a criminal resistance movement, but that's done now and blaming the cops won't bring him back.

---

Never said he was minding his own business. Next.

He made some poor decisions. None of which should have resulted in his death.

Again, was he supposed to tell the ICE agents he was armed before he was pepper sprayed when stepping between a woman that agent had just shoved to the ground, or after?
In Texas, yes, at first point of contact. In MN, only if asked by LE.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/in-which-states-must-you-notify-an-officer-youre-carrying/
In the videos it looks like at least one ICE agent has a weapon drawn well before anyone saw his gun,
"before anyone saw his gun" is not in evidence. We do not know what any of the officers saw, heard, were told, felt on Pretti, etc....

and remember, he never drew or brandished his firearm (which, again, he was in full legal possession of).
"Brandish" has a broader legal meaning than your argument assumes. I had a friend (RIP) who got arrested for brandishing a weapon during an argument with a neighbor. Friend had the big beer gut and wore 3xl t-shirts untucked all the time. The shirts amply covered his holstered concealed weapon. Somewhere during the argument, friend raised his arm up to point at the sky and for a brief moment, the weapon was partially visible. Neighbor called the cops. Friend got a ride. Beat the rap. Now, this was Texas. Might have turned out otherwise in a lot of other states.

What evidence do you have that he was/had organized a criminal resistance movement?
He clearly conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. 111. Other code violations are possible.
Is that with the same evidence bundle that gave Miller, Noem and others in the admin the basis to claim he was there with intent to commit mass murder of agents within minutes of the shooting?

You are right, blaming the ICE agents wont bring him back, and I dont wholly blame them. It is not wrong to say that state/local cooperation likely would have prevented this, but that unfairly absolves the federal government and ICE agents of their role. Tactics and training can be changed to fit situations, instead there has been nothing but the same thing in MN. On Satruday AM, the ICE agents involved had ample opportunity to move along and instead decided to pursue and engage 3 people on a icy road side, one of whom is now dead.

---

There are so ways this shooting can be defended as justifiable. For example: Let's say the Officer 1 who fired had been informed that Pretti was armed. So what if Pretti, while struggling with the officers, made a movement that O1 perceived an attempt do draw that weapon? What if the officer, knowing Pretti was armed, noticed that Pretti's holster was empty. Where did that gun go? (O1 pulls weapon,) O1 was unaware that the weapon had in fact been secured by Officer 2, and could have misperceived the accidental discharge by O2 as Pretti actually firing the weapon. And on and on and on.

You're overthinking it.
Pretti violated state law. (conceal carry without ID)
Pretti violated US law. (interference with law enforcement operations)
Pretti got into a fight with SIX police officers.
Pretti was armed.
What were the odds that nobody gets hurt in a scenario like that?

---

So he should be murdered?

---

no one should be murdered. And neither Pretti nor Good were murdered. They were the victims of a justified police shooting.

---

That remains to be seen. If investigated...

---

Share with your liberal friends, save lives pic.twitter.com/T7C2te1aSv

— Inez Stepman ⚪️🔴⚪️ (@InezFeltscher) January 27, 2026

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So you want to pretend this guy was 'just there minding his own business'.

He made some very poor decisions, and it's tragic but on him.

Maybe it's just me, but in his situation I would at least have told the cops I had a gun when we first talked, but really would not have brought a gun to that place, and frankly would not have organized a criminal resistance movement, but that's done now and blaming the cops won't bring him back.

---

Never said he was minding his own business. Next.

He made some poor decisions. None of which should have resulted in his death.

Again, was he supposed to tell the ICE agents he was armed before he was pepper sprayed when stepping between a woman that agent had just shoved to the ground, or after?
In Texas, yes, at first point of contact. In MN, only if asked by LE.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/in-which-states-must-you-notify-an-officer-youre-carrying/
In the videos it looks like at least one ICE agent has a weapon drawn well before anyone saw his gun,
"before anyone saw his gun" is not in evidence. We do not know what any of the officers saw, heard, were told, felt on Pretti, etc....

and remember, he never drew or brandished his firearm (which, again, he was in full legal possession of).
"Brandish" has a broader legal meaning than your argument assumes. I had a friend (RIP) who got arrested for brandishing a weapon during an argument with a neighbor. Friend had the big beer gut and wore 3xl t-shirts untucked all the time. The shirts amply covered his holstered concealed weapon. Somewhere during the argument, friend raised his arm up to point at the sky and for a brief moment, the weapon was partially visible. Neighbor called the cops. Friend got a ride. Beat the rap. Now, this was Texas. Might have turned out otherwise in a lot of other states.

What evidence do you have that he was/had organized a criminal resistance movement?
He clearly conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. 111. Other code violations are possible.
Is that with the same evidence bundle that gave Miller, Noem and others in the admin the basis to claim he was there with intent to commit mass murder of agents within minutes of the shooting?

You are right, blaming the ICE agents wont bring him back, and I dont wholly blame them. It is not wrong to say that state/local cooperation likely would have prevented this, but that unfairly absolves the federal government and ICE agents of their role. Tactics and training can be changed to fit situations, instead there has been nothing but the same thing in MN. On Satruday AM, the ICE agents involved had ample opportunity to move along and instead decided to pursue and engage 3 people on a icy road side, one of whom is now dead.

---

There are so ways this shooting can be defended as justifiable. For example: Let's say the Officer 1 who fired had been informed that Pretti was armed. So what if Pretti, while struggling with the officers, made a movement that O1 perceived an attempt do draw that weapon? What if the officer, knowing Pretti was armed, noticed that Pretti's holster was empty. Where did that gun go? (O1 pulls weapon,) O1 was unaware that the weapon had in fact been secured by Officer 2, and could have misperceived the accidental discharge by O2 as Pretti actually firing the weapon. And on and on and on.

You're overthinking it.
Pretti violated state law. (conceal carry without ID)
Pretti violated US law. (interference with law enforcement operations)
Pretti got into a fight with SIX police officers.
Pretti was armed.
What were the odds that nobody gets hurt in a scenario like that?

---

So he should be murdered?

---

no one should be murdered. And neither Pretti nor Good were murdered. They were the victims of a justified police shooting. No! I know what my eyes saw like I did on J6

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So you want to pretend this guy was 'just there minding his own business'.

He made some very poor decisions, and it's tragic but on him.

Maybe it's just me, but in his situation I would at least have told the cops I had a gun when we first talked, but really would not have brought a gun to that place, and frankly would not have organized a criminal resistance movement, but that's done now and blaming the cops won't bring him back.

---

Never said he was minding his own business. Next.

He made some poor decisions. None of which should have resulted in his death.

Again, was he supposed to tell the ICE agents he was armed before he was pepper sprayed when stepping between a woman that agent had just shoved to the ground, or after?
In Texas, yes, at first point of contact. In MN, only if asked by LE.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/in-which-states-must-you-notify-an-officer-youre-carrying/
In the videos it looks like at least one ICE agent has a weapon drawn well before anyone saw his gun,
"before anyone saw his gun" is not in evidence. We do not know what any of the officers saw, heard, were told, felt on Pretti, etc....

and remember, he never drew or brandished his firearm (which, again, he was in full legal possession of).
"Brandish" has a broader legal meaning than your argument assumes. I had a friend (RIP) who got arrested for brandishing a weapon during an argument with a neighbor. Friend had the big beer gut and wore 3xl t-shirts untucked all the time. The shirts amply covered his holstered concealed weapon. Somewhere during the argument, friend raised his arm up to point at the sky and for a brief moment, the weapon was partially visible. Neighbor called the cops. Friend got a ride. Beat the rap. Now, this was Texas. Might have turned out otherwise in a lot of other states.

What evidence do you have that he was/had organized a criminal resistance movement?
He clearly conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. 111. Other code violations are possible.
Is that with the same evidence bundle that gave Miller, Noem and others in the admin the basis to claim he was there with intent to commit mass murder of agents within minutes of the shooting?

You are right, blaming the ICE agents wont bring him back, and I dont wholly blame them. It is not wrong to say that state/local cooperation likely would have prevented this, but that unfairly absolves the federal government and ICE agents of their role. Tactics and training can be changed to fit situations, instead there has been nothing but the same thing in MN. On Satruday AM, the ICE agents involved had ample opportunity to move along and instead decided to pursue and engage 3 people on a icy road side, one of whom is now dead.

---

There are so ways this shooting can be defended as justifiable. For example: Let's say the Officer 1 who fired had been informed that Pretti was armed. So what if Pretti, while struggling with the officers, made a movement that O1 perceived an attempt do draw that weapon? What if the officer, knowing Pretti was armed, noticed that Pretti's holster was empty. Where did that gun go? (O1 pulls weapon,) O1 was unaware that the weapon had in fact been secured by Officer 2, and could have misperceived the accidental discharge by O2 as Pretti actually firing the weapon. And on and on and on.

You're overthinking it.
Pretti violated state law. (conceal carry without ID)
Pretti violated US law. (interference with law enforcement operations)
Pretti got into a fight with SIX police officers.
Pretti was armed.
What were the odds that nobody gets hurt in a scenario like that?

---

So he should be murdered?

---

no one should be murdered. And neither Pretti nor Good were murdered. They were the victims of a justified police shooting. No! I know what my eyes saw like I did on J6

---

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

So you want to pretend this guy was 'just there minding his own business'.

He made some very poor decisions, and it's tragic but on him.

Maybe it's just me, but in his situation I would at least have told the cops I had a gun when we first talked, but really would not have brought a gun to that place, and frankly would not have organized a criminal resistance movement, but that's done now and blaming the cops won't bring him back.

---

Never said he was minding his own business. Next.

He made some poor decisions. None of which should have resulted in his death.

Again, was he supposed to tell the ICE agents he was armed before he was pepper sprayed when stepping between a woman that agent had just shoved to the ground, or after?
In Texas, yes, at first point of contact. In MN, only if asked by LE.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/in-which-states-must-you-notify-an-officer-youre-carrying/
In the videos it looks like at least one ICE agent has a weapon drawn well before anyone saw his gun,
"before anyone saw his gun" is not in evidence. We do not know what any of the officers saw, heard, were told, felt on Pretti, etc....

and remember, he never drew or brandished his firearm (which, again, he was in full legal possession of).
"Brandish" has a broader legal meaning than your argument assumes. I had a friend (RIP) who got arrested for brandishing a weapon during an argument with a neighbor. Friend had the big beer gut and wore 3xl t-shirts untucked all the time. The shirts amply covered his holstered concealed weapon. Somewhere during the argument, friend raised his arm up to point at the sky and for a brief moment, the weapon was partially visible. Neighbor called the cops. Friend got a ride. Beat the rap. Now, this was Texas. Might have turned out otherwise in a lot of other states.

What evidence do you have that he was/had organized a criminal resistance movement?
He clearly conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. 111. Other code violations are possible.
Is that with the same evidence bundle that gave Miller, Noem and others in the admin the basis to claim he was there with intent to commit mass murder of agents within minutes of the shooting?

You are right, blaming the ICE agents wont bring him back, and I dont wholly blame them. It is not wrong to say that state/local cooperation likely would have prevented this, but that unfairly absolves the federal government and ICE agents of their role. Tactics and training can be changed to fit situations, instead there has been nothing but the same thing in MN. On Satruday AM, the ICE agents involved had ample opportunity to move along and instead decided to pursue and engage 3 people on a icy road side, one of whom is now dead.

---

There are so ways this shooting can be defended as justifiable. For example: Let's say the Officer 1 who fired had been informed that Pretti was armed. So what if Pretti, while struggling with the officers, made a movement that O1 perceived an attempt do draw that weapon? What if the officer, knowing Pretti was armed, noticed that Pretti's holster was empty. Where did that gun go? (O1 pulls weapon,) O1 was unaware that the weapon had in fact been secured by Officer 2, and could have misperceived the accidental discharge by O2 as Pretti actually firing the weapon. And on and on and on.

You're overthinking it.
Pretti violated state law. (conceal carry without ID)
Pretti violated US law. (interference with law enforcement operations)
Pretti got into a fight with SIX police officers.
Pretti was armed.
What were the odds that nobody gets hurt in a scenario like that?

---

So he should be murdered?

---

no one should be murdered. And neither Pretti nor Good were murdered. They were the victims of a justified police shooting. No! I know what my eyes saw like I did on J6

---

---

You're seeing what you need to see to comport with worldview. Reality looks like this:

The sound bytes around the Pretti story evade both context and personal responsibility.

No one has the right to charge into a law enforcement operation and confront officers. It's a crime. Carrying a gun while doing so makes it more volatile. pic.twitter.com/79RVZ3QTrG

— Walter Hudson (@WalterHudson) January 28, 2026

---

Quote:

---

Pretti violated state law. (conceal carry without ID) He was licensed
Pretti violated US law. (interference with law enforcement operations) He was trying to protect a woman needlessly shoved to the ground. If my wife was pussed by that ground I, too, would get shot for protecting her.
Pretti got into a fight with SIX police officers. He did not fight. He was surrounded and pushed to ground..It's hard to resist with you face in the pavement,
Pretti was armed. Legally
What were the odds that nobody gets hurt in a scenario like that? With ICE apprently 100%, but that doesn't make it justified..

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Quote:

---

Pretti violated state law. (conceal carry without ID) He was licensed
Pretti violated US law. (interference with law enforcement operations) He was trying to protect a woman needlessly shoved to the ground. If my wife was pussed by that ground I, too, would get shot for protecting her.
Pretti got into a fight with SIX police officers. He did not fight. He was surrounded and pushed to ground..It's hard to resist with you face in the pavement,
Pretti was armed. Legally
What were the odds that nobody gets hurt in a scenario like that? With ICE apprently 100%, but that doesn't make it justified..

---

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Quote:

---

Pretti violated state law. (conceal carry without ID) He was licensed
Pretti violated US law. (interference with law enforcement operations) He was trying to protect a woman needlessly shoved to the ground. If my wife was pussed by that ground I, too, would get shot for protecting her.
Pretti got into a fight with SIX police officers. He did not fight. He was surrounded and pushed to ground..It's hard to resist with you face in the pavement,
Pretti was armed. Legally
What were the odds that nobody gets hurt in a scenario like that? With ICE apprently 100%, but that doesn't make it justified..

---

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

midgett 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.

---

This footage is so damning, that you and I both know it will never leave X.

Now we know that Alex Pretti was not a kindly gentle nurse… he was a CRIMINAL!!!

An ARMED, VIOLENT, DANGEROUS, UNHINGED criminal.

HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN PRISON!!!!!!!

pic.twitter.com/Oa36olxtTe

— Matt Van Swol (@mattvanswol) January 28, 2026

Pretti was no innocent. He wasn't a legal observer. He wasn't an innocent bystander. He wasn't a gentle caring nurse. He was confronting, attacking and obstructing law enforcement.

Did he deserve to die? No. Did he put himself in a compromising position? Yes.

---

I fail to see how him getting into it with ICE 11 days earlier equals it is good to shoot him.

You want to arrest him and fine him for vandalizing a vehicle? Fine. Did he like ICE? clearly not.

Just not seeing how something that happened 11 days earlier effects last weekend? Is the tape 11 days earlier even admissable? I guess history? Anyone that tried such a case? Attorneies?

---