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

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

"I think so."

---

Sam lying and mischaracterizing people's positions again.

Guy knows no other way to make an argument.

---

midgett said:

---

(Sam and FL5630)

Assume he had been arrested 11 days prior for initiating interference with law enforcement.

What would a Minneapolis judge have done? Immediately release him. So many liberal judges are releasing violent criminals across the country. It's insane.

Pretti would probably not even have to pay bail. Minnesota has been signaling, no outright telling ICE and feds that they will not prosecute illegals or "protestors".

ICE wasn't going to waste their time. Did they keep tabs on the ANTIFA type terrorists who are constantly interfering. I would totally expect so. I know I would.

---

midgett said:

---

(Sam and FL5630)

Assume he had been arrested 11 days prior for initiating interference with law enforcement.

What would a Minneapolis judge have done? Immediately release him. So many liberal judges are releasing violent criminals across the country. It's insane.

Pretti would probably not even have to pay bail. Minnesota has been signaling, no outright telling ICE and feds that they will not prosecute illegals or "protestors".

ICE wasn't going to waste their time. Did they keep tabs on the ANTIFA type terrorists who are constantly interfering. I would totally expect so. I know I would.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

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..

---

---

Were you part of the Democrat militias that led an insurrection against the U.S. in the 1950s to stop school integration? Do you support there "protests" and interference with law enforcement to stop federal-mandated integration in the name of "state's rights" or "first amendment" protests?

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

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..

---

---

Were you part of the Democrat militias that led an insurrection against the U.S. in the 1950s to stop school integration? Do you support there "protests" and interference with law enforcement to stop federal-mandated integration in the name of "state's rights" or "first amendment" protests?

---

Those Democrats were racist SOBs who morphed into Republicans. It started with Goldwater, then Lee Atwood and Nixon, the Reagan and the welfare queens, then Willie Horton then Trump and anyone of any other color than white

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

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..

---

---

Were you part of the Democrat militias that led an insurrection against the U.S. in the 1950s to stop school integration? Do you support there "protests" and interference with law enforcement to stop federal-mandated integration in the name of "state's rights" or "first amendment" protests?

---

Those Democrats were racist SOBs who morphed into Republicans. It started with Goldwater, then Lee Atwood and Nixon, the Reagan and the welfare queens, then Willie Horton then Trump and anyone of any other color than white

---

Wangchung said:

---

There's that magical "police should de-escalate" crap rearing its ******ed head again. Imagine thinking ICE could have de-escalated that calm nutjob Good, or that violent vehicle kicking spitting Pretti. Ask any of the ones who claim ICE should have de-escalated HOW they could have de-escalated those two situations. The won't have an answer.

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

If the officers in the later video were aware of, or maybe even part of the previous incident where Pretti had violently assaulted officers, then clearly this would change the entire context of the second encounter, and cause the officers to have a much lower threshold in considering Pretti a threat to their life and safety while physically apprehending him - especially given that Pretti was likely known to be carrying a deadly weapon. In that very volatile and chaotic situation, you then add in the spontaneous discharge of his gun? You get a shooting by the officers - while undoubtedly the result of extremely bad luck for Pretti who was very unwisely and dangerously testing fate - which was still within the officers' right, and thus likely justifiable.

---

I get it and I believe he should have been arrested for kicking the vehicle. I can even see being arrested for getting in the way of ICE the 2nd time.

You make those decisions for a principle, your right. But, the other side is you are arrested.

The issue I am having is with the Federal Agency response and posture. The level of response is not proportional. He kicked the taillight, so that justifies shooting him 10 times 11 days later? He kicked the taillight, so they teargas the crowd? Walking around MN like a Fallout character in gas masks? So the expectation is that they are teargassing regularly?

That is the issue, in my opinion. The default can't be the Federal Agency kills people in the street for minor actions and the responsibility is on the dead to prove they didn't deserve to be shot. If it is even investigated. That is a dangerous precedent.

The argument, this Board is a great example, has moved from right and wrong to right and left. That is a problem.

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

If the officers in the later video were aware of, or maybe even part of the previous incident where Pretti had violently assaulted officers, then clearly this would change the entire context of the second encounter, and cause the officers to have a much lower threshold in considering Pretti a threat to their life and safety while physically apprehending him - especially given that Pretti was likely known to be carrying a deadly weapon. In that very volatile and chaotic situation, you then add in the spontaneous discharge of his gun? You get a shooting by the officers - while undoubtedly the result of extremely bad luck for Pretti who was very unwisely and dangerously testing fate - which was still within the officers' right, and thus likely justifiable.

---

I get it and I believe he should have been arrested for kicking the vehicle. I can even see being arrested for getting in the way of ICE the 2nd time.

You make those decisions for a principle, your right. But, the other side is you are arrested.

The issue I am having is with the Federal Agency response and posture. The level of response is not proportional. He kicked the taillight, so that justifies shooting him 10 times 11 days later? He kicked the taillight, so they teargas the crowd? Walking around MN like a Fallout character in gas masks? So the expectation is that they are teargassing regularly?

That is the issue, in my opinion. The default can't be the Federal Agency kills people in the street for minor actions and the responsibility is on the dead to prove they didn't deserve to be shot. If it is even investigated. That is a dangerous precedent.

The argument, this Board is a great example, has moved from right and wrong to right and left. That is a problem.

---

If the video is real, kicking the car is an arrest able offense. Should have happened. Has nothing to do with what happened 11 days later.

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

If the officers in the later video were aware of, or maybe even part of the previous incident where Pretti had violently assaulted officers, then clearly this would change the entire context of the second encounter, and cause the officers to have a much lower threshold in considering Pretti a threat to their life and safety while physically apprehending him - especially given that Pretti was likely known to be carrying a deadly weapon. In that very volatile and chaotic situation, you then add in the spontaneous discharge of his gun? You get a shooting by the officers - while undoubtedly the result of extremely bad luck for Pretti who was very unwisely and dangerously testing fate - which was still within the officers' right, and thus likely justifiable.

---

I get it and I believe he should have been arrested for kicking the vehicle. I can even see being arrested for getting in the way of ICE the 2nd time.

You make those decisions for a principle, your right. But, the other side is you are arrested.

The issue I am having is with the Federal Agency response and posture. The level of response is not proportional. He kicked the taillight, so that justifies shooting him 10 times 11 days later? He kicked the taillight, so they teargas the crowd? Walking around MN like a Fallout character in gas masks? So the expectation is that they are teargassing regularly?

That is the issue, in my opinion. The default can't be the Federal Agency kills people in the street for minor actions and the responsibility is on the dead to prove they didn't deserve to be shot. If it is even investigated. That is a dangerous precedent.

The argument, this Board is a great example, has moved from right and wrong to right and left. That is a problem.

---

If the video is real, kicking the car is an arrest able offense. Should have happened. Has nothing to do with what happened 11 days later.

---

So this isn't a case of over-policing. It's a case of under-policing.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

If the officers in the later video were aware of, or maybe even part of the previous incident where Pretti had violently assaulted officers, then clearly this would change the entire context of the second encounter, and cause the officers to have a much lower threshold in considering Pretti a threat to their life and safety while physically apprehending him - especially given that Pretti was likely known to be carrying a deadly weapon. In that very volatile and chaotic situation, you then add in the spontaneous discharge of his gun? You get a shooting by the officers - while undoubtedly the result of extremely bad luck for Pretti who was very unwisely and dangerously testing fate - which was still within the officers' right, and thus likely justifiable.

---

I get it and I believe he should have been arrested for kicking the vehicle. I can even see being arrested for getting in the way of ICE the 2nd time.

You make those decisions for a principle, your right. But, the other side is you are arrested.

The issue I am having is with the Federal Agency response and posture. The level of response is not proportional. He kicked the taillight, so that justifies shooting him 10 times 11 days later? He kicked the taillight, so they teargas the crowd? Walking around MN like a Fallout character in gas masks? So the expectation is that they are teargassing regularly?

That is the issue, in my opinion. The default can't be the Federal Agency kills people in the street for minor actions and the responsibility is on the dead to prove they didn't deserve to be shot. If it is even investigated. That is a dangerous precedent.

The argument, this Board is a great example, has moved from right and wrong to right and left. That is a problem.

---

If the video is real, kicking the car is an arrest able offense. Should have happened. Has nothing to do with what happened 11 days later.

---

So this isn't a case of over-policing. It's a case of under-policing.

---

That would be the most studiously Orwellian way of putting it. Normal people would just say two things can both be true.

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

If the officers in the later video were aware of, or maybe even part of the previous incident where Pretti had violently assaulted officers, then clearly this would change the entire context of the second encounter, and cause the officers to have a much lower threshold in considering Pretti a threat to their life and safety while physically apprehending him - especially given that Pretti was likely known to be carrying a deadly weapon. In that very volatile and chaotic situation, you then add in the spontaneous discharge of his gun? You get a shooting by the officers - while undoubtedly the result of extremely bad luck for Pretti who was very unwisely and dangerously testing fate - which was still within the officers' right, and thus likely justifiable.

---

I get it and I believe he should have been arrested for kicking the vehicle. I can even see being arrested for getting in the way of ICE the 2nd time.

You make those decisions for a principle, your right. But, the other side is you are arrested.

The issue I am having is with the Federal Agency response and posture. The level of response is not proportional. He kicked the taillight, so that justifies shooting him 10 times 11 days later? He kicked the taillight, so they teargas the crowd? Walking around MN like a Fallout character in gas masks? So the expectation is that they are teargassing regularly?

That is the issue, in my opinion. The default can't be the Federal Agency kills people in the street for minor actions and the responsibility is on the dead to prove they didn't deserve to be shot. If it is even investigated. That is a dangerous precedent.

The argument, this Board is a great example, has moved from right and wrong to right and left. That is a problem.

---

If the video is real, kicking the car is an arrest able offense. Should have happened. Has nothing to do with what happened 11 days later.

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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?

---

If the officers in the later video were aware of, or maybe even part of the previous incident where Pretti had violently assaulted officers, then clearly this would change the entire context of the second encounter, and cause the officers to have a much lower threshold in considering Pretti a threat to their life and safety while physically apprehending him - especially given that Pretti was likely known to be carrying a deadly weapon. In that very volatile and chaotic situation, you then add in the spontaneous discharge of his gun? You get a shooting by the officers - while undoubtedly the result of extremely bad luck for Pretti who was very unwisely and dangerously testing fate - which was still within the officers' right, and thus likely justifiable.

---

I get it and I believe he should have been arrested for kicking the vehicle. I can even see being arrested for getting in the way of ICE the 2nd time.

You make those decisions for a principle, your right. But, the other side is you are arrested.

The issue I am having is with the Federal Agency response and posture. The level of response is not proportional. He kicked the taillight, so that justifies shooting him 10 times 11 days later? He kicked the taillight, so they teargas the crowd? Walking around MN like a Fallout character in gas masks? So the expectation is that they are teargassing regularly?

That is the issue, in my opinion. The default can't be the Federal Agency kills people in the street for minor actions and the responsibility is on the dead to prove they didn't deserve to be shot. If it is even investigated. That is a dangerous precedent.

The argument, this Board is a great example, has moved from right and wrong to right and left. That is a problem.

---

If the video is real, kicking the car is an arrest able offense. Should have happened. Has nothing to do with what happened 11 days later.

---

an arrestable offense which would have likely gotten his weapon confiscated.

If they'd have arrested him, he'd be alive today. So this isn't a case of over-policing. It's a case of under-policing.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goode drove her car at ICE.

Pretti brought his gun.


I am sorry they died, but the honest folks will recognize their incidents were provoked by the people who suffered for their rash decisions.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goode drove her car at ICE.

Pretti brought his gun.


I am sorry they died, but the honest folks will recognize their incidents were provoked by the people who suffered for their rash decisions.

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goode drove her car at ICE.

Pretti brought his gun.


I am sorry they died, but the honest folks will recognize their incidents were provoked by the people who suffered for their rash decisions.

---

Granted, I have no issues with that. Concede your point. Their fault, ICE handled perfectly.

Ok, you had 13 people shot over the course of a year. At some point, leadership has to look at what is going on and make adjustments. An Agency can't keep shooting people in the street and generating several thousand people protests. This is not Fallujah, these are not military troops. The goal can't be to break the resistance in to compliance. It is law enforcement in the US.

You can blame the people, but what does the Agency do to reduce that conflict. And yes, it will be more in some areas of the Nation. Fact of a Democracy and a 50/50 political split. When an Agency generates this type of response it is time to step back and re-address strategy for this area. It is not about who wins in Court, it can't always be a hammer/anvil response.

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goode drove her car at ICE.

Pretti brought his gun.


I am sorry they died, but the honest folks will recognize their incidents were provoked by the people who suffered for their rash decisions.

---

Granted, I have no issues with that. Concede your point. Their fault, ICE handled perfectly.

Ok, you had 13 people shot over the course of a year. At some point, leadership has to look at what is going on and make adjustments. An Agency can't keep shooting people in the street and generating several thousand people protests. This is not Fallujah, these are not military troops. The goal can't be to break the resistance in to compliance. It is law enforcement in the US.

You can blame the people, but what does the Agency do to reduce that conflict. And yes, it will be more in some areas of the Nation. Fact of a Democracy and a 50/50 political split. When an Agency generates this type of response it is time to step back and re-address strategy for this area. It is not about who wins in Court, it can't always be a hammer/anvil response.

---

There it is again! "Law enforcement should have expected violent opposition to the enforcing the law and they should have used a magic wand to de-escalate!" Such a clown

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goode drove her car at ICE.

Pretti brought his gun.


I am sorry they died, but the honest folks will recognize their incidents were provoked by the people who suffered for their rash decisions.

---

Granted, I have no issues with that. Concede your point. Their fault, ICE handled perfectly.

Ok, you had 13 people shot over the course of a year. At some point, leadership has to look at what is going on and make adjustments. An Agency can't keep shooting people in the street and generating several thousand people protests. This is not Fallujah, these are not military troops. The goal can't be to break the resistance in to compliance. It is law enforcement in the US.

You can blame the people, but what does the Agency do to reduce that conflict. And yes, it will be more in some areas of the Nation. Fact of a Democracy and a 50/50 political split. When an Agency generates this type of response it is time to step back and re-address strategy for this area. It is not about who wins in Court, it can't always be a hammer/anvil response.

---

There it is again! "Law enforcement should have expected violent opposition to the enforcing the law and they should have used a magic wand to de-escalate!" Such a clown

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goode drove her car at ICE.

Pretti brought his gun.


I am sorry they died, but the honest folks will recognize their incidents were provoked by the people who suffered for their rash decisions.

---

Granted, I have no issues with that. Concede your point. Their fault, ICE handled perfectly.

Ok, you had 13 people shot over the course of a year. At some point, leadership has to look at what is going on and make adjustments. An Agency can't keep shooting people in the street and generating several thousand people protests. This is not Fallujah, these are not military troops. The goal can't be to break the resistance in to compliance. It is law enforcement in the US.

You can blame the people, but what does the Agency do to reduce that conflict. And yes, it will be more in some areas of the Nation. Fact of a Democracy and a 50/50 political split. When an Agency generates this type of response it is time to step back and re-address strategy for this area. It is not about who wins in Court, it can't always be a hammer/anvil response.

---

There it is again! "Law enforcement should have expected violent opposition to the enforcing the law and they should have used a magic wand to de-escalate!" Such a clown

---

Have you ever sat and had to mediate between law enforcement and locals? I have on public safety.

Law Enforcement has their expectations and the public agencies have what they can actually deliver. The two sometimes do not meet, you have to reduce the gap between expectations or you will have a blow up. You have to get to what the expectations are and find a way around the differences.

It looks like Homan is doing that. There are political realities Frey is operating under and Homan is operating under. Frey can't take a knee, that is not why he was elected. Homan can't concede. You starting to get it? It is not as easy as the Fed does what they want because of the Supremacy Clause.

Now, if you want to discuss the realities of Federal, State and Local interactions let's have a discussion. If you want to just say they deserved to be shot they were wrong. You are missing the point and there is opportunity here for Trump.

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Goode drove her car at ICE.

Pretti brought his gun.


I am sorry they died, but the honest folks will recognize their incidents were provoked by the people who suffered for their rash decisions.

---

Granted, I have no issues with that. Concede your point. Their fault, ICE handled perfectly.

Ok, you had 13 people shot over the course of a year. At some point, leadership has to look at what is going on and make adjustments. An Agency can't keep shooting people in the street and generating several thousand people protests. This is not Fallujah, these are not military troops. The goal can't be to break the resistance in to compliance. It is law enforcement in the US.

You can blame the people, but what does the Agency do to reduce that conflict. And yes, it will be more in some areas of the Nation. Fact of a Democracy and a 50/50 political split. When an Agency generates this type of response it is time to step back and re-address strategy for this area. It is not about who wins in Court, it can't always be a hammer/anvil response.

---

There it is again! "Law enforcement should have expected violent opposition to the enforcing the law and they should have used a magic wand to de-escalate!" Such a clown

---

Have you ever sat and had to mediate between law enforcement and locals? I have on public safety.

Law Enforcement has their expectations and the public agencies have what they can actually deliver. The two sometimes do not meet, you have to reduce the gap between expectations or you will have a blow up. You have to get to what the expectations are and find a way around the differences.

It looks like Homan is doing that. There are political realities Frey is operating under and Homan is operating under. Frey can't take a knee, that is not why he was elected. Homan can't concede. You starting to get it? It is not as easy as the Fed does what they want because of the Supremacy Clause.

Now, if you want to discuss the realities of Federal, State and Local interactions let's have a discussion. If you want to just say they deserved to be shot they were wrong. You are missing the point and there is opportunity here for Trump.

---

So you still have ZERO methods for de-escalation? You think Frey's political career means more than enforcing federal laws? The agencies should work around the democrats desire to not enforce immigration law? *** are you talking about? There was NEVER going to be to be cooperation until the hammer was brought down. Now that the democrats have felt that hammer they are finally cooperating with ICE, or at least stated that they will begin to do so.
You simply refuse to understand that de-escalation with the democrats only happens when ICE leaves the state completely, right? And that's not going to happen. But you blame ICE and not the democrat instigators or the democrats who carry out their orders and attack.

---