BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The gun doesn't have to spontaneously discharge while in Pretti's possession for the officers to understandably react to it, especially when it is highly likely they didn't even know that Pretti's gun was taken by another agent during the chaos. This is just a clueless argument. It demonstrates either a frightening gap in thinking, or a dishonest attempt to dismiss ANYTHING that might absolve the officers to any degree in order to continue promoting the narrative they want.

---

That pesky 2A, combined with MN law, says Alex has a right to carry that gun in a protest. The only reaction officers can have under MN law is to ask him to hand over the gun if they feel it is making the scene dangerous. He must comply with the request and they must return the gun to him before he leaves. It's black letter MN law.

This makes their escalation of the event an overreaction. The good news is they were never going for his gun. They never knew he had it until he was on the ground. It doesn't matter if the agent(s) who fired knew another agent had it or not. His constitutional rights were trampled on from the beginning, and the spin by 2A supporters to make ICE right is unbelievable. Nothing you say matches the video, the known facts, the second amendment, or MN law regarding concealed carry.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Probably for a similar reason to the one that many card carrying Republicans, and other conservatives, flipped on their 2A stance and used the white guy's mere possession of a firearm as a good enough a reason as any for him to be murdered.

---

Never saw anyone do that, but plenty mentioned that being a violent moron who attacks law enforcement makes being armed far more dangerous and in fact illegal.

---

I would like for you to post a video of him attacking law enforcement on the day he was murdered. You have a video. It's just 11 days before the murder. And he kicked a car not an actual person. Yes, he could have been arrested for that, but he wasn't. Whose fault is that? But on the day in question, he did nothing wrong and ended up dead.

---

He armed himself with the intent to, once again, interfere with law enforcement. He antagonized law enforcement and then fought them while being arrested. At that point, he killed himself. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement.

---

You don't have any proof of his intent. Here you go spinning your 2A beliefs just like I said people are doing. Legal gun carriers, like me, put our guns on every time we leave the house. We do it just like putting on any other article of clothing. You cannot prove his intent.

You can't even prove he interfered with law enforcement on the day in question. He crossed a street. He helped a lady up. ICE pepper sprayed him. ICE shot him. Those are the undeniable events to anyone who has seen the videos.

He was tackled. If you want to see a fight so be it.

It's pretty clear an ICE agent shot him. An ICE agent walked off with his gun about a second before he was shot, so it's pretty clear he didn't kill himself.

He did not attack anyone. He definitely damaged a car 11 days before, and that is a crime, but for whatever reason he was not arrested. No arrest, no chance at conviction. No conviction, he is a legal gun carrier on the day in question.

Here is the 2A spin I said was happening in my original post. There are all kinds of posts by you throughout the years on this board supporting 2A, but not for this guy.

---

Ridiculous spin and made up nonsense. We have video of his prior engagements with law enforcement. We know why he was there. We know why he armed himself to go to interfere with enforcement. I am armed all the time. I do not arm myself and then go commit crimes, which is EXACTLY what he did and had a proven violent history of doing. Those are facts. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement.

---

It's non spin. It's a direct account of everything in the videos of the shooting.

Again, you have no proof of his intent. 11 days before, you definitely have a video of him kicking out the light of a car. You can even see a silhouette of what I believe to be the same gun in his back in that video. This means he took the gun to the event where he did cause damage to a police car and never drew it. That means you cannot prove he intended to use it. On the day he died, we know he had the gun again, and yet he never took it out. As an admitted gun carrier, you know you do not draw your gun unless you intend to use it. Two videos and we never see the gun in his hand. You have no proof of his intentions with that gun either day.

He committed a crime 11 days before he died. ICE could have immediately stopped the car and taken him into custody. They did not. Without due process that ends in conviction, he is not a criminal. If he's not a criminal, he is a legal gun carrier the day he dies. And, he never attacked ICE the day he was shot. They engaged him.

As a gun carrier, you should know these things, and yet, just as I said several posts ago, you are backpedaling on what the NRA calls a unequivocal belief in the second amendment. I'm doing nothing but doubling down on my belief that LWNJ, just a democrat, moderate, republican, MAGA republican, whoever the person may be had a legal right to possess a gun, and multiple magazines, on that street in MN at the exact same time Alex was murdered for doing so.

---

How does the possible spontaneous discharge of his weapon at the most inopportune time during his resisting of arrest factor in your analysis with regard to the shooting?

---

I'll admit spontaneous discharge of his weapon is a new one one me. However, in the video, you can clearly see an ICE agent walk away from the dogpile with Alex's gun in his hand. Even ICE admits he was disarmed and his gun was never fired. You can then see an agent on the other side open fire. Alex was not killed by his own gun.

And, if you meant the ICE agent's gun, guns don't just go off. I reject the spontaneous discharge of anyone's weapon outright.

---

Do you honestly think that we're saying that the spontaneous gun discharge is what shot Pretti? Yikes.

What's really been remarkable to witness here in these threads is how you and others, even when introduced to the fact about the gun discharge, can't or simply refuse to make the extremely obvious connection between the gun discharging and Pretti getting shot. Who had the gun when it discharged is entirely irrelevant. Whether Pretti was disarmed is entirely irrelevant. What matters is whether the other officers during the chaos of wrestling with Pretti knew that at the time.

It's as if you guys are so set on a certain narrative that you're having to purposefully dance around the obvious. If it isn't on purpose, then it shows a huge gap in your thinking. It truly is a wonder.

---

Pretti's gun didn't discharge. Take the time to look at the best videos in slow motion, while he is trapped on the ground, then as his gun is being removed by the officer and then carried away by the officer. There is no discharge.

Lies by the administration are not facts, and they have proven they will lie like fake news. They realize the sheep will believe anything they say. That does not make it truth.

---

There are some who have looked at the video and believe that the gun may have discharged while the agent was carrying the gun away. There might have been a gunshot heard on the video even before an agent shot Pretti. I believe DHS is currently investigating this possibility.

But the point was not whether it is definitely known that the gun discharged or not. The point was that there's this very odd inability (or stubborn unwillingness) of those here who have been promoting the anti-ICE/Trump narrative to make the simple and obvious connection that IF the gun had discharged, that it might have been the reason the agents shot Pretti, thinking it was Pretti who had his gun (holster was empty, and he had something in his hand) and fired the shot. Arguing that "but Pretti was disarmed" or "it was the agent who had the gun, not Pretti" are ridiculously irrelevant. The gun doesn't have to spontaneously discharge while in Pretti's possession for the officers to understandably react to it, especially when it is highly likely they didn't even know that Pretti's gun was taken by another agent during the chaos. This is just a clueless argument. It demonstrates either a frightening gap in thinking, or a dishonest attempt to dismiss ANYTHING that might absolve the officers to any degree in order to continue promoting the narrative they want.

---

The gap in thinking is that some very conservative people have come to understand Trump and his inner circle are some corrupt folks who will lie about anything, while true MAGA people still follows his words like sheep.

The theory about the discharged gun causing the officers to shoot has some relevance, if Pretti weren't pinned down without any chance to shoot anybody.

The Trump administration is grasping at straws. Straws they are creating. I bet they will find conveniently that the gun had been shot once. Hey, it's in their possession now. Anything is possible.

Sam Lowry said:

---

This thread should have an R rating for the carnage El Oso is causing. Just one headshot after another to the Trump zombies.

---

This kiss of death from Sam as El Oso slowly drowns from all the facts being shoved down his throat.

Do we really need to repeat the same crap from the other three threads ...

It's funny how the LWNJs have seemed to have forgotten about the lesbian that tried to run over the ICE agent.

The movie is, like El Osos' posts, a work of fiction.

The difference being that the movie was worth your attention.

El Oso said:

---

Alex was shot 8 days ago. At no time in the last eight days has ICE, or anyone else in the Trump administration, said his gun discharged. They've taken an overwhelming amount of heat on this shooting. If they had proof that gun fired, they would have said so becausehis gun firing changes the situation. They haven't. The gun didn't fire and you're the only one spinning what all available video and eye witness accounts show right now. This was a bad shoot by ICE.

---

I'm far from being the only one to make this claim. There actually is some video and audio support for that theory. I'm not even sure I believe that's what actually happened yet, I'll wait for the findings of the investigation - something I wish all you guys would have the fairness and objectivity to do before you cast stones at ICE. I merely introduce that theory as a possible justification for the shooting, something you guys are completely set against there being because you're set on a certain conclusion for political reasons. The ICE cops are out there dealing with crazies who are armed, while you sit safely and comfortably at your desk, scolding them on the internet. I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt for at least the time being.

Of course this was a "bad shoot" in hindsight. But not all "bad shootings" are unjustified. Life or death decisions have to be made in real time, in microseconds, not in hindsight. As long as the ICE agents had a "reasonable" concern for imminent danger to their life or safety, then it can be justified. The spontaneous discharge of the gun isn't the only scenario where there's justification. Earlier, and maybe in a different thread, I explained a theory on what may have happened - it's possible that when an agent removed Pretti's gun amidst the chaos, another agent saw an arm reach in and take the gun out of the holster, and thought it was Pretti's arm. And when you add in the possibility that someone yelled "gun! gun!", or maybe even a gun shot was heard, then the shooting was almost inevitable at that point. Terrible, terrible luck for Pretti, but in chaotic and volatile situations, bad luck can play a significant part. And Pretti played a big part in setting up his bad luck. There's too much focus on blaming ICE, and not enough on blaming the bad actions of the agitators. Again, all this is politically motivated, that's why we're seeing these BS arguments trying to pin this all on ICE.

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The gun doesn't have to spontaneously discharge while in Pretti's possession for the officers to understandably react to it, especially when it is highly likely they didn't even know that Pretti's gun was taken by another agent during the chaos. This is just a clueless argument. It demonstrates either a frightening gap in thinking, or a dishonest attempt to dismiss ANYTHING that might absolve the officers to any degree in order to continue promoting the narrative they want.

---

That pesky 2A, combined with MN law, says Alex has a right to carry that gun in a protest. The only reaction officers can have under MN law is to ask him to hand over the gun if they feel it is making the scene dangerous. He must comply with the request and they must return the gun to him before he leaves. It's black letter MN law.

This makes their escalation of the event an overreaction. The good news is they were never going for his gun. They never knew he had it until he was on the ground. It doesn't matter if the agent(s) who fired knew another agent had it or not. His constitutional rights were trampled on from the beginning, and the spin by 2A supporters to make ICE right is unbelievable. Nothing you say matches the video, the known facts, the second amendment, or MN law regarding concealed carry.

---

Again, you're totally misframing the situation and issue. This wasn't an issue where ICE agents came across Pretti, and noticed he had a gun, so they wrestled with him to take it away, and ended up shooting him. This is a dishonest take. The second amendment has nothing to do with this. Just because you have the right to carry doesn't mean the cops aren't allowed to be on high alert when you are carrying while antagonizing and impeding them, even having assaulted them in a prior encounter and then resisting arrest a second time Also, you don't know for a fact that they only knew he had a gun when he was on the ground - they might have known this from their previous encounter with him. The second amendment angle to this argument is totally invalid.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Alex was shot 8 days ago. At no time in the last eight days has ICE, or anyone else in the Trump administration, said his gun discharged. They've taken an overwhelming amount of heat on this shooting. If they had proof that gun fired, they would have said so becausehis gun firing changes the situation. They haven't. The gun didn't fire and you're the only one spinning what all available video and eye witness accounts show right now. This was a bad shoot by ICE.

---

I'm far from being the only one to make this claim. There actually is some video and audio support for that theory. I'm not even sure I believe that's what actually happened yet, I'll wait for the findings of the investigation - something I wish all you guys would have the fairness and objectivity to do before you cast stones at ICE. I merely introduce that theory as a possible justification for the shooting, something you guys are completely set against there being because you're set on a certain conclusion for political reasons. The ICE cops are out there dealing with crazies who are armed, while you sit safely and comfortably at your desk, scolding them on the internet. I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt for at least the time being.

Of course this was a "bad shoot" in hindsight. But not all "bad shootings" are unjustified. Life or death decisions have to be made in real time, in microseconds, not in hindsight. As long as the ICE agents had a "reasonable" concern for imminent danger to their life or safety, then it can be justified. The spontaneous discharge of the gun isn't the only scenario where there's justification. Earlier, and maybe in a different thread, I explained a theory on what may have happened - it's possible that when an agent removed Pretti's gun amidst the chaos, another agent saw an arm reach in and take the gun out of the holster, and thought it was Pretti's arm. And when you add in the possibility that someone yelled "gun! gun!", or maybe even a gun shot was heard, then the shooting was almost inevitable at that point. Terrible, terrible luck for Pretti, but in chaotic and volatile situations, bad luck can play a significant part. And Pretti played a big part in setting up his bad luck. There's too much focus on blaming ICE, and not enough on blaming the bad actions of the agitators. Again, all this is politically motivated, that's why we're seeing these BS arguments trying to pin this all on ICE.

---

Really,

Looking at the response from Noem, Miller, and the previous ICE "Leader" on the ground in Minnesota, it seems there is way too much focus on blaming the killed individual, branding him, a Domestic Terrorist, Assassin, and person looking to get maximum carnage, before the body was even cold.

If there were a professional response from the administration, it would certainly help in trusting a single word that came out of the governments mouth. At this moment we can't trust a single word.

Forest Bueller III said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Probably for a similar reason to the one that many card carrying Republicans, and other conservatives, flipped on their 2A stance and used the white guy's mere possession of a firearm as a good enough a reason as any for him to be murdered.

---

Never saw anyone do that, but plenty mentioned that being a violent moron who attacks law enforcement makes being armed far more dangerous and in fact illegal.

---

I would like for you to post a video of him attacking law enforcement on the day he was murdered. You have a video. It's just 11 days before the murder. And he kicked a car not an actual person. Yes, he could have been arrested for that, but he wasn't. Whose fault is that? But on the day in question, he did nothing wrong and ended up dead.

---

He armed himself with the intent to, once again, interfere with law enforcement. He antagonized law enforcement and then fought them while being arrested. At that point, he killed himself. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement.

---

You don't have any proof of his intent. Here you go spinning your 2A beliefs just like I said people are doing. Legal gun carriers, like me, put our guns on every time we leave the house. We do it just like putting on any other article of clothing. You cannot prove his intent.

You can't even prove he interfered with law enforcement on the day in question. He crossed a street. He helped a lady up. ICE pepper sprayed him. ICE shot him. Those are the undeniable events to anyone who has seen the videos.

He was tackled. If you want to see a fight so be it.

It's pretty clear an ICE agent shot him. An ICE agent walked off with his gun about a second before he was shot, so it's pretty clear he didn't kill himself.

He did not attack anyone. He definitely damaged a car 11 days before, and that is a crime, but for whatever reason he was not arrested. No arrest, no chance at conviction. No conviction, he is a legal gun carrier on the day in question.

Here is the 2A spin I said was happening in my original post. There are all kinds of posts by you throughout the years on this board supporting 2A, but not for this guy.

---

Ridiculous spin and made up nonsense. We have video of his prior engagements with law enforcement. We know why he was there. We know why he armed himself to go to interfere with enforcement. I am armed all the time. I do not arm myself and then go commit crimes, which is EXACTLY what he did and had a proven violent history of doing. Those are facts. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement.

---

It's non spin. It's a direct account of everything in the videos of the shooting.

Again, you have no proof of his intent. 11 days before, you definitely have a video of him kicking out the light of a car. You can even see a silhouette of what I believe to be the same gun in his back in that video. This means he took the gun to the event where he did cause damage to a police car and never drew it. That means you cannot prove he intended to use it. On the day he died, we know he had the gun again, and yet he never took it out. As an admitted gun carrier, you know you do not draw your gun unless you intend to use it. Two videos and we never see the gun in his hand. You have no proof of his intentions with that gun either day.

He committed a crime 11 days before he died. ICE could have immediately stopped the car and taken him into custody. They did not. Without due process that ends in conviction, he is not a criminal. If he's not a criminal, he is a legal gun carrier the day he dies. And, he never attacked ICE the day he was shot. They engaged him.

As a gun carrier, you should know these things, and yet, just as I said several posts ago, you are backpedaling on what the NRA calls a unequivocal belief in the second amendment. I'm doing nothing but doubling down on my belief that LWNJ, just a democrat, moderate, republican, MAGA republican, whoever the person may be had a legal right to possess a gun, and multiple magazines, on that street in MN at the exact same time Alex was murdered for doing so.

---

How does the possible spontaneous discharge of his weapon at the most inopportune time during his resisting of arrest factor in your analysis with regard to the shooting?

---

I'll admit spontaneous discharge of his weapon is a new one one me. However, in the video, you can clearly see an ICE agent walk away from the dogpile with Alex's gun in his hand. Even ICE admits he was disarmed and his gun was never fired. You can then see an agent on the other side open fire. Alex was not killed by his own gun.

And, if you meant the ICE agent's gun, guns don't just go off. I reject the spontaneous discharge of anyone's weapon outright.

---

Do you honestly think that we're saying that the spontaneous gun discharge is what shot Pretti? Yikes.

What's really been remarkable to witness here in these threads is how you and others, even when introduced to the fact about the gun discharge, can't or simply refuse to make the extremely obvious connection between the gun discharging and Pretti getting shot. Who had the gun when it discharged is entirely irrelevant. Whether Pretti was disarmed is entirely irrelevant. What matters is whether the other officers during the chaos of wrestling with Pretti knew that at the time.

It's as if you guys are so set on a certain narrative that you're having to purposefully dance around the obvious. If it isn't on purpose, then it shows a huge gap in your thinking. It truly is a wonder.

---

Pretti's gun didn't discharge. Take the time to look at the best videos in slow motion, while he is trapped on the ground, then as his gun is being removed by the officer and then carried away by the officer. There is no discharge.

Lies by the administration are not facts, and they have proven they will lie like fake news. They realize the sheep will believe anything they say. That does not make it truth.

---

There are some who have looked at the video and believe that the gun may have discharged while the agent was carrying the gun away. There might have been a gunshot heard on the video even before an agent shot Pretti. I believe DHS is currently investigating this possibility.

But the point was not whether it is definitely known that the gun discharged or not. The point was that there's this very odd inability (or stubborn unwillingness) of those here who have been promoting the anti-ICE/Trump narrative to make the simple and obvious connection that IF the gun had discharged, that it might have been the reason the agents shot Pretti, thinking it was Pretti who had his gun (holster was empty, and he had something in his hand) and fired the shot. Arguing that "but Pretti was disarmed" or "it was the agent who had the gun, not Pretti" are ridiculously irrelevant. The gun doesn't have to spontaneously discharge while in Pretti's possession for the officers to understandably react to it, especially when it is highly likely they didn't even know that Pretti's gun was taken by another agent during the chaos. This is just a clueless argument. It demonstrates either a frightening gap in thinking, or a dishonest attempt to dismiss ANYTHING that might absolve the officers to any degree in order to continue promoting the narrative they want.

---

The gap in thinking is that some very conservative people have come to understand Trump and his inner circle are some corrupt folks who will lie about anything, while true MAGA people still follows his words like sheep.

The theory about the discharged gun causing the officers to shoot has some relevance, if Pretti weren't pinned down without any chance to shoot anybody.

The Trump administration is grasping at straws. Straws they are creating. I bet they will find conveniently that the gun had been shot once. Hey, it's in their possession now. Anything is possible.

---

Pretti was not pinned down enough to prevent any chance of using his gun. He wasn't fully in the control of the officers, he was still fighting. What you're demonstrating in your comment is what I've been criticizing on this thread - you're making it more about politics and anti-Trump/MAGA than being objective, and it's shaping your view. What Trump and MAGA think has nothing to do with the merits of this case.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Probably for a similar reason to the one that many card carrying Republicans, and other conservatives, flipped on their 2A stance and used the white guy's mere possession of a firearm as a good enough a reason as any for him to be murdered.

---

Never saw anyone do that, but plenty mentioned that being a violent moron who attacks law enforcement makes being armed far more dangerous and in fact illegal.

---

I would like for you to post a video of him attacking law enforcement on the day he was murdered. You have a video. It's just 11 days before the murder. And he kicked a car not an actual person. Yes, he could have been arrested for that, but he wasn't. Whose fault is that? But on the day in question, he did nothing wrong and ended up dead.

---

He armed himself with the intent to, once again, interfere with law enforcement. He antagonized law enforcement and then fought them while being arrested. At that point, he killed himself. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement.

---

You don't have any proof of his intent. Here you go spinning your 2A beliefs just like I said people are doing. Legal gun carriers, like me, put our guns on every time we leave the house. We do it just like putting on any other article of clothing. You cannot prove his intent.

You can't even prove he interfered with law enforcement on the day in question. He crossed a street. He helped a lady up. ICE pepper sprayed him. ICE shot him. Those are the undeniable events to anyone who has seen the videos.

He was tackled. If you want to see a fight so be it.

It's pretty clear an ICE agent shot him. An ICE agent walked off with his gun about a second before he was shot, so it's pretty clear he didn't kill himself.

He did not attack anyone. He definitely damaged a car 11 days before, and that is a crime, but for whatever reason he was not arrested. No arrest, no chance at conviction. No conviction, he is a legal gun carrier on the day in question.

Here is the 2A spin I said was happening in my original post. There are all kinds of posts by you throughout the years on this board supporting 2A, but not for this guy.

---

Ridiculous spin and made up nonsense. We have video of his prior engagements with law enforcement. We know why he was there. We know why he armed himself to go to interfere with enforcement. I am armed all the time. I do not arm myself and then go commit crimes, which is EXACTLY what he did and had a proven violent history of doing. Those are facts. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement.

---

It's non spin. It's a direct account of everything in the videos of the shooting.

Again, you have no proof of his intent. 11 days before, you definitely have a video of him kicking out the light of a car. You can even see a silhouette of what I believe to be the same gun in his back in that video. This means he took the gun to the event where he did cause damage to a police car and never drew it. That means you cannot prove he intended to use it. On the day he died, we know he had the gun again, and yet he never took it out. As an admitted gun carrier, you know you do not draw your gun unless you intend to use it. Two videos and we never see the gun in his hand. You have no proof of his intentions with that gun either day.

He committed a crime 11 days before he died. ICE could have immediately stopped the car and taken him into custody. They did not. Without due process that ends in conviction, he is not a criminal. If he's not a criminal, he is a legal gun carrier the day he dies. And, he never attacked ICE the day he was shot. They engaged him.

As a gun carrier, you should know these things, and yet, just as I said several posts ago, you are backpedaling on what the NRA calls a unequivocal belief in the second amendment. I'm doing nothing but doubling down on my belief that LWNJ, just a democrat, moderate, republican, MAGA republican, whoever the person may be had a legal right to possess a gun, and multiple magazines, on that street in MN at the exact same time Alex was murdered for doing so.

---

How does the possible spontaneous discharge of his weapon at the most inopportune time during his resisting of arrest factor in your analysis with regard to the shooting?

---

I'll admit spontaneous discharge of his weapon is a new one one me. However, in the video, you can clearly see an ICE agent walk away from the dogpile with Alex's gun in his hand. Even ICE admits he was disarmed and his gun was never fired. You can then see an agent on the other side open fire. Alex was not killed by his own gun.

And, if you meant the ICE agent's gun, guns don't just go off. I reject the spontaneous discharge of anyone's weapon outright.

---

Do you honestly think that we're saying that the spontaneous gun discharge is what shot Pretti? Yikes.

What's really been remarkable to witness here in these threads is how you and others, even when introduced to the fact about the gun discharge, can't or simply refuse to make the extremely obvious connection between the gun discharging and Pretti getting shot. Who had the gun when it discharged is entirely irrelevant. Whether Pretti was disarmed is entirely irrelevant. What matters is whether the other officers during the chaos of wrestling with Pretti knew that at the time.

It's as if you guys are so set on a certain narrative that you're having to purposefully dance around the obvious. If it isn't on purpose, then it shows a huge gap in your thinking. It truly is a wonder.

---

Pretti's gun didn't discharge. Take the time to look at the best videos in slow motion, while he is trapped on the ground, then as his gun is being removed by the officer and then carried away by the officer. There is no discharge.

Lies by the administration are not facts, and they have proven they will lie like fake news. They realize the sheep will believe anything they say. That does not make it truth.

---

There are some who have looked at the video and believe that the gun may have discharged while the agent was carrying the gun away. There might have been a gunshot heard on the video even before an agent shot Pretti. I believe DHS is currently investigating this possibility.

But the point was not whether it is definitely known that the gun discharged or not. The point was that there's this very odd inability (or stubborn unwillingness) of those here who have been promoting the anti-ICE/Trump narrative to make the simple and obvious connection that IF the gun had discharged, that it might have been the reason the agents shot Pretti, thinking it was Pretti who had his gun (holster was empty, and he had something in his hand) and fired the shot. Arguing that "but Pretti was disarmed" or "it was the agent who had the gun, not Pretti" are ridiculously irrelevant. The gun doesn't have to spontaneously discharge while in Pretti's possession for the officers to understandably react to it, especially when it is highly likely they didn't even know that Pretti's gun was taken by another agent during the chaos. This is just a clueless argument. It demonstrates either a frightening gap in thinking, or a dishonest attempt to dismiss ANYTHING that might absolve the officers to any degree in order to continue promoting the narrative they want.

---

The gap in thinking is that some very conservative people have come to understand Trump and his inner circle are some corrupt folks who will lie about anything, while true MAGA people still follows his words like sheep.

The theory about the discharged gun causing the officers to shoot has some relevance, if Pretti weren't pinned down without any chance to shoot anybody.

The Trump administration is grasping at straws. Straws they are creating. I bet they will find conveniently that the gun had been shot once. Hey, it's in their possession now. Anything is possible.

---

Pretti was not pinned down enough to prevent any chance of using his gun. He wasn't fully in the control of the officers, he was still fighting. What you're demonstrating in your comment is what I've been criticizing on this thread - you're making it more about politics and anti-Trump/MAGA than being objective, and it's shaping your view. What Trump and MAGA think has nothing to do with the merits of this case.

---

ZERO about politics for me. I voted Trump 3 times and will vote for whomever the R nominee is in 2028.

I just don't like seeing citizens killed when there are alternatives, and I sure don't like seeing an Administration who publishes a corrupt judgement against the deceased, with literally no basis in fact.

Pretti was certainly not acting like a choirboy, but his actions did not merit death.

Forest Bueller III said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Probably for a similar reason to the one that many card carrying Republicans, and other conservatives, flipped on their 2A stance and used the white guy's mere possession of a firearm as a good enough a reason as any for him to be murdered.

---

Never saw anyone do that, but plenty mentioned that being a violent moron who attacks law enforcement makes being armed far more dangerous and in fact illegal.

---

I would like for you to post a video of him attacking law enforcement on the day he was murdered. You have a video. It's just 11 days before the murder. And he kicked a car not an actual person. Yes, he could have been arrested for that, but he wasn't. Whose fault is that? But on the day in question, he did nothing wrong and ended up dead.

---

He armed himself with the intent to, once again, interfere with law enforcement. He antagonized law enforcement and then fought them while being arrested. At that point, he killed himself. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement.

---

You don't have any proof of his intent. Here you go spinning your 2A beliefs just like I said people are doing. Legal gun carriers, like me, put our guns on every time we leave the house. We do it just like putting on any other article of clothing. You cannot prove his intent.

You can't even prove he interfered with law enforcement on the day in question. He crossed a street. He helped a lady up. ICE pepper sprayed him. ICE shot him. Those are the undeniable events to anyone who has seen the videos.

He was tackled. If you want to see a fight so be it.

It's pretty clear an ICE agent shot him. An ICE agent walked off with his gun about a second before he was shot, so it's pretty clear he didn't kill himself.

He did not attack anyone. He definitely damaged a car 11 days before, and that is a crime, but for whatever reason he was not arrested. No arrest, no chance at conviction. No conviction, he is a legal gun carrier on the day in question.

Here is the 2A spin I said was happening in my original post. There are all kinds of posts by you throughout the years on this board supporting 2A, but not for this guy.

---

Ridiculous spin and made up nonsense. We have video of his prior engagements with law enforcement. We know why he was there. We know why he armed himself to go to interfere with enforcement. I am armed all the time. I do not arm myself and then go commit crimes, which is EXACTLY what he did and had a proven violent history of doing. Those are facts. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement.

---

It's non spin. It's a direct account of everything in the videos of the shooting.

Again, you have no proof of his intent. 11 days before, you definitely have a video of him kicking out the light of a car. You can even see a silhouette of what I believe to be the same gun in his back in that video. This means he took the gun to the event where he did cause damage to a police car and never drew it. That means you cannot prove he intended to use it. On the day he died, we know he had the gun again, and yet he never took it out. As an admitted gun carrier, you know you do not draw your gun unless you intend to use it. Two videos and we never see the gun in his hand. You have no proof of his intentions with that gun either day.

He committed a crime 11 days before he died. ICE could have immediately stopped the car and taken him into custody. They did not. Without due process that ends in conviction, he is not a criminal. If he's not a criminal, he is a legal gun carrier the day he dies. And, he never attacked ICE the day he was shot. They engaged him.

As a gun carrier, you should know these things, and yet, just as I said several posts ago, you are backpedaling on what the NRA calls a unequivocal belief in the second amendment. I'm doing nothing but doubling down on my belief that LWNJ, just a democrat, moderate, republican, MAGA republican, whoever the person may be had a legal right to possess a gun, and multiple magazines, on that street in MN at the exact same time Alex was murdered for doing so.

---

How does the possible spontaneous discharge of his weapon at the most inopportune time during his resisting of arrest factor in your analysis with regard to the shooting?

---

I'll admit spontaneous discharge of his weapon is a new one one me. However, in the video, you can clearly see an ICE agent walk away from the dogpile with Alex's gun in his hand. Even ICE admits he was disarmed and his gun was never fired. You can then see an agent on the other side open fire. Alex was not killed by his own gun.

And, if you meant the ICE agent's gun, guns don't just go off. I reject the spontaneous discharge of anyone's weapon outright.

---

Do you honestly think that we're saying that the spontaneous gun discharge is what shot Pretti? Yikes.

What's really been remarkable to witness here in these threads is how you and others, even when introduced to the fact about the gun discharge, can't or simply refuse to make the extremely obvious connection between the gun discharging and Pretti getting shot. Who had the gun when it discharged is entirely irrelevant. Whether Pretti was disarmed is entirely irrelevant. What matters is whether the other officers during the chaos of wrestling with Pretti knew that at the time.

It's as if you guys are so set on a certain narrative that you're having to purposefully dance around the obvious. If it isn't on purpose, then it shows a huge gap in your thinking. It truly is a wonder.

---

Pretti's gun didn't discharge. Take the time to look at the best videos in slow motion, while he is trapped on the ground, then as his gun is being removed by the officer and then carried away by the officer. There is no discharge.

Lies by the administration are not facts, and they have proven they will lie like fake news. They realize the sheep will believe anything they say. That does not make it truth.

---

There are some who have looked at the video and believe that the gun may have discharged while the agent was carrying the gun away. There might have been a gunshot heard on the video even before an agent shot Pretti. I believe DHS is currently investigating this possibility.

But the point was not whether it is definitely known that the gun discharged or not. The point was that there's this very odd inability (or stubborn unwillingness) of those here who have been promoting the anti-ICE/Trump narrative to make the simple and obvious connection that IF the gun had discharged, that it might have been the reason the agents shot Pretti, thinking it was Pretti who had his gun (holster was empty, and he had something in his hand) and fired the shot. Arguing that "but Pretti was disarmed" or "it was the agent who had the gun, not Pretti" are ridiculously irrelevant. The gun doesn't have to spontaneously discharge while in Pretti's possession for the officers to understandably react to it, especially when it is highly likely they didn't even know that Pretti's gun was taken by another agent during the chaos. This is just a clueless argument. It demonstrates either a frightening gap in thinking, or a dishonest attempt to dismiss ANYTHING that might absolve the officers to any degree in order to continue promoting the narrative they want.

---

The gap in thinking is that some very conservative people have come to understand Trump and his inner circle are some corrupt folks who will lie about anything, while true MAGA people still follows his words like sheep.

The theory about the discharged gun causing the officers to shoot has some relevance, if Pretti weren't pinned down without any chance to shoot anybody.

The Trump administration is grasping at straws. Straws they are creating. I bet they will find conveniently that the gun had been shot once. Hey, it's in their possession now. Anything is possible.

---

Pretti was not pinned down enough to prevent any chance of using his gun. He wasn't fully in the control of the officers, he was still fighting. What you're demonstrating in your comment is what I've been criticizing on this thread - you're making it more about politics and anti-Trump/MAGA than being objective, and it's shaping your view. What Trump and MAGA think has nothing to do with the merits of this case.

---

ZERO about politics for me. I voted Trump 3 times and will vote for whomever the R nominee is in 2028.

I just don't like seeing citizens killed when there are alternatives, and I sure don't like seeing an Administration who publishes a corrupt judgement against the deceased, with literally no basis in fact.

Pretti was certainly not acting like a choirboy, but his actions did not merit death.

---

There were certainly alternatives - like peacefully protesting instead of agitating, impeding, and assaulting agents. Why is the blame only on the law enforcement side? They're the ones following law, the agitators are not.

El Oso said:

---

Probably for a similar reason to the one that many card carrying Republicans, and other conservatives, flipped on their 2A stance and used the white guy's mere possession of a firearm as a good enough a reason as any for him to be murdered.

---

Can you post a link supporting this position? I didn't see anyone say he didn't have a right to carry a firearm. What I saw people say is when you confront and obstruct law enforcement, best to not be carrying a weapon.

This seems like a massive straw man.

This guy's previous behavior indicated he was no saint, and both obstructed and assaulted law enforcement. Does it mean the guy deserved to be shot? No, and I think heads should likely roll if my interpretation of the video of the incident is accurate, and he was disarmed before he was shot. But when you engage in illegal conduct, which obstruction and assault are indeed, then it's probably best practice not to be armed.

El Oso said:

---

Republicans backtracking on 2A rights in the last week:
1. FBI Director Kash Patel said on Sunday: "You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want." Actually, in the state of MN, you can bring a firearm to a protest. You also have the right to carry as many magazines as you want as long as you have a license.

2. President Donald J. Trump said on Friday, "You can't have guns. You can't walk in with guns. It's a very unfortunate thing." Actually, in the state of MN, you can as long as you have a license. Even the NRA took the time to correct the president. "The NRA unequivocally believes that all law-abiding citizens have a right to keep and bear arms anywhere they have a legal right to be."

3. Kristi Noem: "I don't know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign." Under MN law, there is no restriction on 2A rights at a protest. You cannot put your personal beliefs on a constitutionally protected and state protected rights to make it sound like someone was up to no good when they were following the law. The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus called Noem's statement, "completely incorrect."

---

Quite a stretch here to suggest this is "backtracking on 2A rights." We agree that the admin's immediate response was less than ideal, and clearly PR spin. But I don't see them raising any 2A issue here.

You really have to stretch the definition of "engaging in assault" to include being assaulted by half a dozen cops.

Sam Lowry said:

---

You really have to stretch the definition of "engaging in assault" to include being assaulted by half a dozen cops.

---

I wasn't referring to his conduct on the date he was killed, though resisting arrest could carry an assault charge.

I was referring to his conduct in the days before. This is a guy who regularly obstructed law enforcement, and engaged in assault against them. We have that much on video. Does it mean the officers were justified in shooting him? Of course not. But undoubtedly his own behavior greatly contributed to his untimely death.

Saw a hilarious reel yesterday. The guy remarks he was amazed that rule #1 for avoiding a shark bite was NOT "don't go in the water." Game. Set. Match.

Mothra said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Republicans backtracking on 2A rights in the last week:
1. FBI Director Kash Patel said on Sunday: "You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want." Actually, in the state of MN, you can bring a firearm to a protest. You also have the right to carry as many magazines as you want as long as you have a license.

2. President Donald J. Trump said on Friday, "You can't have guns. You can't walk in with guns. It's a very unfortunate thing." Actually, in the state of MN, you can as long as you have a license. Even the NRA took the time to correct the president. "The NRA unequivocally believes that all law-abiding citizens have a right to keep and bear arms anywhere they have a legal right to be."

3. Kristi Noem: "I don't know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign." Under MN law, there is no restriction on 2A rights at a protest. You cannot put your personal beliefs on a constitutionally protected and state protected rights to make it sound like someone was up to no good when they were following the law. The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus called Noem's statement, "completely incorrect."

---

Quite a stretch here to suggest this is "backtracking on 2A rights." We agree that the admin's immediate response was less than ideal, and clearly PR spin. But I don't see them raising any 2A issue here.

---

Patel backtracked because he said you cannot. That's not what MN law says, that's not what 2A says, that's not been the position of the NRA or any other pro gun group.

Trump said "You can't have guns." For someone who has been pro guns, and used alignment with the NRA to help all three presidential campaigns, this is an obvious backtrack from prior positions and one the NRA blasted him for.

Noem interjected her opinion into what she thinks should be the law. Nobody gives a **** about her opinion. Her job is to enforce the law. It implies we can infer Alex's intent. You cannot infer the intent of a legal gun owner carrying a gun other than he intended to carry it. She backtracked just enough to try and set a tone she hoped people would buy. I'm astounded by the amount of 2A people who fell for one or more of the above backtracks.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Probably for a similar reason to the one that many card carrying Republicans, and other conservatives, flipped on their 2A stance and used the white guy's mere possession of a firearm as a good enough a reason as any for him to be murdered.

---

Never saw anyone do that, but plenty mentioned that being a violent moron who attacks law enforcement makes being armed far more dangerous and in fact illegal.

---

I would like for you to post a video of him attacking law enforcement on the day he was murdered. You have a video. It's just 11 days before the murder. And he kicked a car not an actual person. Yes, he could have been arrested for that, but he wasn't. Whose fault is that? But on the day in question, he did nothing wrong and ended up dead.

---

He armed himself with the intent to, once again, interfere with law enforcement. He antagonized law enforcement and then fought them while being arrested. At that point, he killed himself. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement.

---

You don't have any proof of his intent. Here you go spinning your 2A beliefs just like I said people are doing. Legal gun carriers, like me, put our guns on every time we leave the house. We do it just like putting on any other article of clothing. You cannot prove his intent.

You can't even prove he interfered with law enforcement on the day in question. He crossed a street. He helped a lady up. ICE pepper sprayed him. ICE shot him. Those are the undeniable events to anyone who has seen the videos.

He was tackled. If you want to see a fight so be it.

It's pretty clear an ICE agent shot him. An ICE agent walked off with his gun about a second before he was shot, so it's pretty clear he didn't kill himself.

He did not attack anyone. He definitely damaged a car 11 days before, and that is a crime, but for whatever reason he was not arrested. No arrest, no chance at conviction. No conviction, he is a legal gun carrier on the day in question.

Here is the 2A spin I said was happening in my original post. There are all kinds of posts by you throughout the years on this board supporting 2A, but not for this guy.

---

Ridiculous spin and made up nonsense. We have video of his prior engagements with law enforcement. We know why he was there. We know why he armed himself to go to interfere with enforcement. I am armed all the time. I do not arm myself and then go commit crimes, which is EXACTLY what he did and had a proven violent history of doing. Those are facts. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement.

---

It's non spin. It's a direct account of everything in the videos of the shooting.

Again, you have no proof of his intent. 11 days before, you definitely have a video of him kicking out the light of a car. You can even see a silhouette of what I believe to be the same gun in his back in that video. This means he took the gun to the event where he did cause damage to a police car and never drew it. That means you cannot prove he intended to use it. On the day he died, we know he had the gun again, and yet he never took it out. As an admitted gun carrier, you know you do not draw your gun unless you intend to use it. Two videos and we never see the gun in his hand. You have no proof of his intentions with that gun either day.

He committed a crime 11 days before he died. ICE could have immediately stopped the car and taken him into custody. They did not. Without due process that ends in conviction, he is not a criminal. If he's not a criminal, he is a legal gun carrier the day he dies. And, he never attacked ICE the day he was shot. They engaged him.

As a gun carrier, you should know these things, and yet, just as I said several posts ago, you are backpedaling on what the NRA calls a unequivocal belief in the second amendment. I'm doing nothing but doubling down on my belief that LWNJ, just a democrat, moderate, republican, MAGA republican, whoever the person may be had a legal right to possess a gun, and multiple magazines, on that street in MN at the exact same time Alex was murdered for doing so.

---

How does the possible spontaneous discharge of his weapon at the most inopportune time during his resisting of arrest factor in your analysis with regard to the shooting?

---

I'll admit spontaneous discharge of his weapon is a new one one me. However, in the video, you can clearly see an ICE agent walk away from the dogpile with Alex's gun in his hand. Even ICE admits he was disarmed and his gun was never fired. You can then see an agent on the other side open fire. Alex was not killed by his own gun.

And, if you meant the ICE agent's gun, guns don't just go off. I reject the spontaneous discharge of anyone's weapon outright.

---

Do you honestly think that we're saying that the spontaneous gun discharge is what shot Pretti? Yikes.

What's really been remarkable to witness here in these threads is how you and others, even when introduced to the fact about the gun discharge, can't or simply refuse to make the extremely obvious connection between the gun discharging and Pretti getting shot. Who had the gun when it discharged is entirely irrelevant. Whether Pretti was disarmed is entirely irrelevant. What matters is whether the other officers during the chaos of wrestling with Pretti knew that at the time.

It's as if you guys are so set on a certain narrative that you're having to purposefully dance around the obvious. If it isn't on purpose, then it shows a huge gap in your thinking. It truly is a wonder.

---

Pretti's gun didn't discharge. Take the time to look at the best videos in slow motion, while he is trapped on the ground, then as his gun is being removed by the officer and then carried away by the officer. There is no discharge.

Lies by the administration are not facts, and they have proven they will lie like fake news. They realize the sheep will believe anything they say. That does not make it truth.

---

There are some who have looked at the video and believe that the gun may have discharged while the agent was carrying the gun away. There might have been a gunshot heard on the video even before an agent shot Pretti. I believe DHS is currently investigating this possibility.

But the point was not whether it is definitely known that the gun discharged or not. The point was that there's this very odd inability (or stubborn unwillingness) of those here who have been promoting the anti-ICE/Trump narrative to make the simple and obvious connection that IF the gun had discharged, that it might have been the reason the agents shot Pretti, thinking it was Pretti who had his gun (holster was empty, and he had something in his hand) and fired the shot. Arguing that "but Pretti was disarmed" or "it was the agent who had the gun, not Pretti" are ridiculously irrelevant. The gun doesn't have to spontaneously discharge while in Pretti's possession for the officers to understandably react to it, especially when it is highly likely they didn't even know that Pretti's gun was taken by another agent during the chaos. This is just a clueless argument. It demonstrates either a frightening gap in thinking, or a dishonest attempt to dismiss ANYTHING that might absolve the officers to any degree in order to continue promoting the narrative they want.

---

The gap in thinking is that some very conservative people have come to understand Trump and his inner circle are some corrupt folks who will lie about anything, while true MAGA people still follows his words like sheep.

The theory about the discharged gun causing the officers to shoot has some relevance, if Pretti weren't pinned down without any chance to shoot anybody.

The Trump administration is grasping at straws. Straws they are creating. I bet they will find conveniently that the gun had been shot once. Hey, it's in their possession now. Anything is possible.

---

Pretti was not pinned down enough to prevent any chance of using his gun. He wasn't fully in the control of the officers, he was still fighting. What you're demonstrating in your comment is what I've been criticizing on this thread - you're making it more about politics and anti-Trump/MAGA than being objective, and it's shaping your view. What Trump and MAGA think has nothing to do with the merits of this case.

---

Not one time did I make it about politics. This has always been about an abuse of power against a registered gun owner.

My voting record in the last three presidential elections: Trump, Trump, Oliver.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Of course this was a "bad shoot" in hindsight. But not all "bad shootings" are unjustified.

---

It wasn't a bad shoot in hindsight. Anyone who took the CHL class in TX knew it was a bad shoot the second they watched it.

I'd be hard pressed to think of a justified bad shooting, but take a shot (pun intended). I'll listen.

Mothra said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Probably for a similar reason to the one that many card carrying Republicans, and other conservatives, flipped on their 2A stance and used the white guy's mere possession of a firearm as a good enough a reason as any for him to be murdered.

---

Can you post a link supporting this position? I didn't see anyone say he didn't have a right to carry a firearm. What I saw people say is when you confront and obstruct law enforcement, best to not be carrying a weapon.

This seems like a massive straw man.

This guy's previous behavior indicated he was no saint, and both obstructed and assaulted law enforcement. Does it mean the guy deserved to be shot? No, and I think heads should likely roll if my interpretation of the video of the incident is accurate, and he was disarmed before he was shot. But when you engage in illegal conduct, which obstruction and assault are indeed, then it's probably best practice not to be armed.

---

I posted three direct quotes from press conferences or interactions with the media, widely reported by journalistic outfits. Google the quote, you pick the outlet you want to use because no matter which one I picked someone would say I was being political.

You told me the quotes weren't backtracking even though they are the exact opposite of prior quotes regarding gun rights from all three people. Now you say it's a strawman. It's neither. They're backtracking and why you refuse to see it confuses me.

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Probably for a similar reason to the one that many card carrying Republicans, and other conservatives, flipped on their 2A stance and used the white guy's mere possession of a firearm as a good enough a reason as any for him to be murdered.

---

Never saw anyone do that, but plenty mentioned that being a violent moron who attacks law enforcement makes being armed far more dangerous and in fact illegal.

---

I would like for you to post a video of him attacking law enforcement on the day he was murdered. You have a video. It's just 11 days before the murder. And he kicked a car not an actual person. Yes, he could have been arrested for that, but he wasn't. Whose fault is that? But on the day in question, he did nothing wrong and ended up dead.

---

He armed himself with the intent to, once again, interfere with law enforcement. He antagonized law enforcement and then fought them while being arrested. At that point, he killed himself. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement.

---

You don't have any proof of his intent. Here you go spinning your 2A beliefs just like I said people are doing. Legal gun carriers, like me, put our guns on every time we leave the house. We do it just like putting on any other article of clothing. You cannot prove his intent.

You can't even prove he interfered with law enforcement on the day in question. He crossed a street. He helped a lady up. ICE pepper sprayed him. ICE shot him. Those are the undeniable events to anyone who has seen the videos.

He was tackled. If you want to see a fight so be it.

It's pretty clear an ICE agent shot him. An ICE agent walked off with his gun about a second before he was shot, so it's pretty clear he didn't kill himself.

He did not attack anyone. He definitely damaged a car 11 days before, and that is a crime, but for whatever reason he was not arrested. No arrest, no chance at conviction. No conviction, he is a legal gun carrier on the day in question.

Here is the 2A spin I said was happening in my original post. There are all kinds of posts by you throughout the years on this board supporting 2A, but not for this guy.

---

Ridiculous spin and made up nonsense. We have video of his prior engagements with law enforcement. We know why he was there. We know why he armed himself to go to interfere with enforcement. I am armed all the time. I do not arm myself and then go commit crimes, which is EXACTLY what he did and had a proven violent history of doing. Those are facts. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement.

---

It's non spin. It's a direct account of everything in the videos of the shooting.

Again, you have no proof of his intent. 11 days before, you definitely have a video of him kicking out the light of a car. You can even see a silhouette of what I believe to be the same gun in his back in that video. This means he took the gun to the event where he did cause damage to a police car and never drew it. That means you cannot prove he intended to use it. On the day he died, we know he had the gun again, and yet he never took it out. As an admitted gun carrier, you know you do not draw your gun unless you intend to use it. Two videos and we never see the gun in his hand. You have no proof of his intentions with that gun either day.

He committed a crime 11 days before he died. ICE could have immediately stopped the car and taken him into custody. They did not. Without due process that ends in conviction, he is not a criminal. If he's not a criminal, he is a legal gun carrier the day he dies. And, he never attacked ICE the day he was shot. They engaged him.

As a gun carrier, you should know these things, and yet, just as I said several posts ago, you are backpedaling on what the NRA calls a unequivocal belief in the second amendment. I'm doing nothing but doubling down on my belief that LWNJ, just a democrat, moderate, republican, MAGA republican, whoever the person may be had a legal right to possess a gun, and multiple magazines, on that street in MN at the exact same time Alex was murdered for doing so.

---

How does the possible spontaneous discharge of his weapon at the most inopportune time during his resisting of arrest factor in your analysis with regard to the shooting?

---

I'll admit spontaneous discharge of his weapon is a new one one me. However, in the video, you can clearly see an ICE agent walk away from the dogpile with Alex's gun in his hand. Even ICE admits he was disarmed and his gun was never fired. You can then see an agent on the other side open fire. Alex was not killed by his own gun.

And, if you meant the ICE agent's gun, guns don't just go off. I reject the spontaneous discharge of anyone's weapon outright.

---

Do you honestly think that we're saying that the spontaneous gun discharge is what shot Pretti? Yikes.

What's really been remarkable to witness here in these threads is how you and others, even when introduced to the fact about the gun discharge, can't or simply refuse to make the extremely obvious connection between the gun discharging and Pretti getting shot. Who had the gun when it discharged is entirely irrelevant. Whether Pretti was disarmed is entirely irrelevant. What matters is whether the other officers during the chaos of wrestling with Pretti knew that at the time.

It's as if you guys are so set on a certain narrative that you're having to purposefully dance around the obvious. If it isn't on purpose, then it shows a huge gap in your thinking. It truly is a wonder.

---

Pretti's gun didn't discharge. Take the time to look at the best videos in slow motion, while he is trapped on the ground, then as his gun is being removed by the officer and then carried away by the officer. There is no discharge.

Lies by the administration are not facts, and they have proven they will lie like fake news. They realize the sheep will believe anything they say. That does not make it truth.

---

There are some who have looked at the video and believe that the gun may have discharged while the agent was carrying the gun away. There might have been a gunshot heard on the video even before an agent shot Pretti. I believe DHS is currently investigating this possibility.

But the point was not whether it is definitely known that the gun discharged or not. The point was that there's this very odd inability (or stubborn unwillingness) of those here who have been promoting the anti-ICE/Trump narrative to make the simple and obvious connection that IF the gun had discharged, that it might have been the reason the agents shot Pretti, thinking it was Pretti who had his gun (holster was empty, and he had something in his hand) and fired the shot. Arguing that "but Pretti was disarmed" or "it was the agent who had the gun, not Pretti" are ridiculously irrelevant. The gun doesn't have to spontaneously discharge while in Pretti's possession for the officers to understandably react to it, especially when it is highly likely they didn't even know that Pretti's gun was taken by another agent during the chaos. This is just a clueless argument. It demonstrates either a frightening gap in thinking, or a dishonest attempt to dismiss ANYTHING that might absolve the officers to any degree in order to continue promoting the narrative they want.

---

The gap in thinking is that some very conservative people have come to understand Trump and his inner circle are some corrupt folks who will lie about anything, while true MAGA people still follows his words like sheep.

The theory about the discharged gun causing the officers to shoot has some relevance, if Pretti weren't pinned down without any chance to shoot anybody.

The Trump administration is grasping at straws. Straws they are creating. I bet they will find conveniently that the gun had been shot once. Hey, it's in their possession now. Anything is possible.

---

Pretti was not pinned down enough to prevent any chance of using his gun. He wasn't fully in the control of the officers, he was still fighting. What you're demonstrating in your comment is what I've been criticizing on this thread - you're making it more about politics and anti-Trump/MAGA than being objective, and it's shaping your view. What Trump and MAGA think has nothing to do with the merits of this case.

---

Not one time did I make it about politics. This has always been about an abuse of power against a registered gun owner.

My voting record in the last three presidential elections: Trump, Trump, Oliver.

---

Cleaned some ashes out of my fireplace during the cold snap and realized they were the remains of your straw man.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Probably for a similar reason to the one that many card carrying Republicans, and other conservatives, flipped on their 2A stance and used the white guy's mere possession of a firearm as a good enough a reason as any for him to be murdered.

---

Never saw anyone do that, but plenty mentioned that being a violent moron who attacks law enforcement makes being armed far more dangerous and in fact illegal.

---

I would like for you to post a video of him attacking law enforcement on the day he was murdered. You have a video. It's just 11 days before the murder. And he kicked a car not an actual person. Yes, he could have been arrested for that, but he wasn't. Whose fault is that? But on the day in question, he did nothing wrong and ended up dead.

---

He armed himself with the intent to, once again, interfere with law enforcement. He antagonized law enforcement and then fought them while being arrested. At that point, he killed himself. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement.

---

You don't have any proof of his intent. Here you go spinning your 2A beliefs just like I said people are doing. Legal gun carriers, like me, put our guns on every time we leave the house. We do it just like putting on any other article of clothing. You cannot prove his intent.

You can't even prove he interfered with law enforcement on the day in question. He crossed a street. He helped a lady up. ICE pepper sprayed him. ICE shot him. Those are the undeniable events to anyone who has seen the videos.

He was tackled. If you want to see a fight so be it.

It's pretty clear an ICE agent shot him. An ICE agent walked off with his gun about a second before he was shot, so it's pretty clear he didn't kill himself.

He did not attack anyone. He definitely damaged a car 11 days before, and that is a crime, but for whatever reason he was not arrested. No arrest, no chance at conviction. No conviction, he is a legal gun carrier on the day in question.

Here is the 2A spin I said was happening in my original post. There are all kinds of posts by you throughout the years on this board supporting 2A, but not for this guy.

---

Ridiculous spin and made up nonsense. We have video of his prior engagements with law enforcement. We know why he was there. We know why he armed himself to go to interfere with enforcement. I am armed all the time. I do not arm myself and then go commit crimes, which is EXACTLY what he did and had a proven violent history of doing. Those are facts. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement.

---

It's non spin. It's a direct account of everything in the videos of the shooting.

Again, you have no proof of his intent. 11 days before, you definitely have a video of him kicking out the light of a car. You can even see a silhouette of what I believe to be the same gun in his back in that video. This means he took the gun to the event where he did cause damage to a police car and never drew it. That means you cannot prove he intended to use it. On the day he died, we know he had the gun again, and yet he never took it out. As an admitted gun carrier, you know you do not draw your gun unless you intend to use it. Two videos and we never see the gun in his hand. You have no proof of his intentions with that gun either day.

He committed a crime 11 days before he died. ICE could have immediately stopped the car and taken him into custody. They did not. Without due process that ends in conviction, he is not a criminal. If he's not a criminal, he is a legal gun carrier the day he dies. And, he never attacked ICE the day he was shot. They engaged him.

As a gun carrier, you should know these things, and yet, just as I said several posts ago, you are backpedaling on what the NRA calls a unequivocal belief in the second amendment. I'm doing nothing but doubling down on my belief that LWNJ, just a democrat, moderate, republican, MAGA republican, whoever the person may be had a legal right to possess a gun, and multiple magazines, on that street in MN at the exact same time Alex was murdered for doing so.

---

How does the possible spontaneous discharge of his weapon at the most inopportune time during his resisting of arrest factor in your analysis with regard to the shooting?

---

I'll admit spontaneous discharge of his weapon is a new one one me. However, in the video, you can clearly see an ICE agent walk away from the dogpile with Alex's gun in his hand. Even ICE admits he was disarmed and his gun was never fired. You can then see an agent on the other side open fire. Alex was not killed by his own gun.

And, if you meant the ICE agent's gun, guns don't just go off. I reject the spontaneous discharge of anyone's weapon outright.

---

Do you honestly think that we're saying that the spontaneous gun discharge is what shot Pretti? Yikes.

What's really been remarkable to witness here in these threads is how you and others, even when introduced to the fact about the gun discharge, can't or simply refuse to make the extremely obvious connection between the gun discharging and Pretti getting shot. Who had the gun when it discharged is entirely irrelevant. Whether Pretti was disarmed is entirely irrelevant. What matters is whether the other officers during the chaos of wrestling with Pretti knew that at the time.

It's as if you guys are so set on a certain narrative that you're having to purposefully dance around the obvious. If it isn't on purpose, then it shows a huge gap in your thinking. It truly is a wonder.

---

Pretti's gun didn't discharge. Take the time to look at the best videos in slow motion, while he is trapped on the ground, then as his gun is being removed by the officer and then carried away by the officer. There is no discharge.

Lies by the administration are not facts, and they have proven they will lie like fake news. They realize the sheep will believe anything they say. That does not make it truth.

---

There are some who have looked at the video and believe that the gun may have discharged while the agent was carrying the gun away. There might have been a gunshot heard on the video even before an agent shot Pretti. I believe DHS is currently investigating this possibility.

But the point was not whether it is definitely known that the gun discharged or not. The point was that there's this very odd inability (or stubborn unwillingness) of those here who have been promoting the anti-ICE/Trump narrative to make the simple and obvious connection that IF the gun had discharged, that it might have been the reason the agents shot Pretti, thinking it was Pretti who had his gun (holster was empty, and he had something in his hand) and fired the shot. Arguing that "but Pretti was disarmed" or "it was the agent who had the gun, not Pretti" are ridiculously irrelevant. The gun doesn't have to spontaneously discharge while in Pretti's possession for the officers to understandably react to it, especially when it is highly likely they didn't even know that Pretti's gun was taken by another agent during the chaos. This is just a clueless argument. It demonstrates either a frightening gap in thinking, or a dishonest attempt to dismiss ANYTHING that might absolve the officers to any degree in order to continue promoting the narrative they want.

---

The gap in thinking is that some very conservative people have come to understand Trump and his inner circle are some corrupt folks who will lie about anything, while true MAGA people still follows his words like sheep.

The theory about the discharged gun causing the officers to shoot has some relevance, if Pretti weren't pinned down without any chance to shoot anybody.

The Trump administration is grasping at straws. Straws they are creating. I bet they will find conveniently that the gun had been shot once. Hey, it's in their possession now. Anything is possible.

---

Pretti was not pinned down enough to prevent any chance of using his gun. He wasn't fully in the control of the officers, he was still fighting. What you're demonstrating in your comment is what I've been criticizing on this thread - you're making it more about politics and anti-Trump/MAGA than being objective, and it's shaping your view. What Trump and MAGA think has nothing to do with the merits of this case.

---

ZERO about politics for me. I voted Trump 3 times and will vote for whomever the R nominee is in 2028.

I just don't like seeing citizens killed when there are alternatives, and I sure don't like seeing an Administration who publishes a corrupt judgement against the deceased, with literally no basis in fact.

Pretti was certainly not acting like a choirboy, but his actions did not merit death.

---

There were certainly alternatives - like peacefully protesting instead of agitating, impeding, and assaulting agents. Why is the blame only on the law enforcement side? They're the ones following law, the agitators are not.

---

I've seen plenty of ICE apprehensions and interrogations that are not following any law. They just are doing whatever they wish to do and many times are very agitating and over the top in their reactions to people.

El Oso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Probably for a similar reason to the one that many card carrying Republicans, and other conservatives, flipped on their 2A stance and used the white guy's mere possession of a firearm as a good enough a reason as any for him to be murdered.

---

Can you post a link supporting this position? I didn't see anyone say he didn't have a right to carry a firearm. What I saw people say is when you confront and obstruct law enforcement, best to not be carrying a weapon.

This seems like a massive straw man.

This guy's previous behavior indicated he was no saint, and both obstructed and assaulted law enforcement. Does it mean the guy deserved to be shot? No, and I think heads should likely roll if my interpretation of the video of the incident is accurate, and he was disarmed before he was shot. But when you engage in illegal conduct, which obstruction and assault are indeed, then it's probably best practice not to be armed.

---

I posted three direct quotes from press conferences or interactions with the media, widely reported by journalistic outfits. Google the quote, you pick the outlet you want to use because no matter which one I picked someone would say I was being political.

You told me the quotes weren't backtracking even though they are the exact opposite of prior quotes regarding gun rights from all three people. Now you say it's a strawman. It's neither. They're backtracking and why you refuse to see it confuses me.

---

I didn't say anything of the sort. You clearly have me confused with someone else.

I said I don't see the admin flipping on their 2A stance. They didn't take a position on the 2A, despite what you're trying to attribute to them.

El Oso said:

---

Probably for a similar reason to the one that many card carrying Republicans, and other conservatives, flipped on their 2A stance and used the white guy's mere possession of a firearm as a good enough a reason as any for him to be murdered.

---

Sigh.

The issue is not possession of a gun. The issue is possession of a gun while engaged in hand to hand combat with 4 cops. A very high percentage of people who do that are going to get shot, and justifiably so.

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Of course this was a "bad shoot" in hindsight. But not all "bad shootings" are unjustified.

---

It wasn't a bad shoot in hindsight. Anyone who took the CHL class in TX knew it was a bad shoot the second they watched it.

I'd be hard pressed to think of a justified bad shooting, but take a shot (pun intended). I'll listen.

---

A "bad shooting" in my mind is any time a person who isn't actually an immediate threat gets shot. It becomes justified, however, if that person is reasonably mistaken to be an immediate threat. Spontaneous gun discharges would fit that bill.

So tell us why and how you immediately knew it was a "bad shoot" the second you watched it.

Forest Bueller III said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Forest Bueller III said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Probably for a similar reason to the one that many card carrying Republicans, and other conservatives, flipped on their 2A stance and used the white guy's mere possession of a firearm as a good enough a reason as any for him to be murdered.

---

Never saw anyone do that, but plenty mentioned that being a violent moron who attacks law enforcement makes being armed far more dangerous and in fact illegal.

---

I would like for you to post a video of him attacking law enforcement on the day he was murdered. You have a video. It's just 11 days before the murder. And he kicked a car not an actual person. Yes, he could have been arrested for that, but he wasn't. Whose fault is that? But on the day in question, he did nothing wrong and ended up dead.

---

He armed himself with the intent to, once again, interfere with law enforcement. He antagonized law enforcement and then fought them while being arrested. At that point, he killed himself. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement.

---

You don't have any proof of his intent. Here you go spinning your 2A beliefs just like I said people are doing. Legal gun carriers, like me, put our guns on every time we leave the house. We do it just like putting on any other article of clothing. You cannot prove his intent.

You can't even prove he interfered with law enforcement on the day in question. He crossed a street. He helped a lady up. ICE pepper sprayed him. ICE shot him. Those are the undeniable events to anyone who has seen the videos.

He was tackled. If you want to see a fight so be it.

It's pretty clear an ICE agent shot him. An ICE agent walked off with his gun about a second before he was shot, so it's pretty clear he didn't kill himself.

He did not attack anyone. He definitely damaged a car 11 days before, and that is a crime, but for whatever reason he was not arrested. No arrest, no chance at conviction. No conviction, he is a legal gun carrier on the day in question.

Here is the 2A spin I said was happening in my original post. There are all kinds of posts by you throughout the years on this board supporting 2A, but not for this guy.

---

Ridiculous spin and made up nonsense. We have video of his prior engagements with law enforcement. We know why he was there. We know why he armed himself to go to interfere with enforcement. I am armed all the time. I do not arm myself and then go commit crimes, which is EXACTLY what he did and had a proven violent history of doing. Those are facts. You don't have the right to attack law enforcement.

---

It's non spin. It's a direct account of everything in the videos of the shooting.

Again, you have no proof of his intent. 11 days before, you definitely have a video of him kicking out the light of a car. You can even see a silhouette of what I believe to be the same gun in his back in that video. This means he took the gun to the event where he did cause damage to a police car and never drew it. That means you cannot prove he intended to use it. On the day he died, we know he had the gun again, and yet he never took it out. As an admitted gun carrier, you know you do not draw your gun unless you intend to use it. Two videos and we never see the gun in his hand. You have no proof of his intentions with that gun either day.

He committed a crime 11 days before he died. ICE could have immediately stopped the car and taken him into custody. They did not. Without due process that ends in conviction, he is not a criminal. If he's not a criminal, he is a legal gun carrier the day he dies. And, he never attacked ICE the day he was shot. They engaged him.

As a gun carrier, you should know these things, and yet, just as I said several posts ago, you are backpedaling on what the NRA calls a unequivocal belief in the second amendment. I'm doing nothing but doubling down on my belief that LWNJ, just a democrat, moderate, republican, MAGA republican, whoever the person may be had a legal right to possess a gun, and multiple magazines, on that street in MN at the exact same time Alex was murdered for doing so.

---

How does the possible spontaneous discharge of his weapon at the most inopportune time during his resisting of arrest factor in your analysis with regard to the shooting?

---

I'll admit spontaneous discharge of his weapon is a new one one me. However, in the video, you can clearly see an ICE agent walk away from the dogpile with Alex's gun in his hand. Even ICE admits he was disarmed and his gun was never fired. You can then see an agent on the other side open fire. Alex was not killed by his own gun.

And, if you meant the ICE agent's gun, guns don't just go off. I reject the spontaneous discharge of anyone's weapon outright.

---

Do you honestly think that we're saying that the spontaneous gun discharge is what shot Pretti? Yikes.

What's really been remarkable to witness here in these threads is how you and others, even when introduced to the fact about the gun discharge, can't or simply refuse to make the extremely obvious connection between the gun discharging and Pretti getting shot. Who had the gun when it discharged is entirely irrelevant. Whether Pretti was disarmed is entirely irrelevant. What matters is whether the other officers during the chaos of wrestling with Pretti knew that at the time.

It's as if you guys are so set on a certain narrative that you're having to purposefully dance around the obvious. If it isn't on purpose, then it shows a huge gap in your thinking. It truly is a wonder.

---

Pretti's gun didn't discharge. Take the time to look at the best videos in slow motion, while he is trapped on the ground, then as his gun is being removed by the officer and then carried away by the officer. There is no discharge.

Lies by the administration are not facts, and they have proven they will lie like fake news. They realize the sheep will believe anything they say. That does not make it truth.

---

There are some who have looked at the video and believe that the gun may have discharged while the agent was carrying the gun away. There might have been a gunshot heard on the video even before an agent shot Pretti. I believe DHS is currently investigating this possibility.

But the point was not whether it is definitely known that the gun discharged or not. The point was that there's this very odd inability (or stubborn unwillingness) of those here who have been promoting the anti-ICE/Trump narrative to make the simple and obvious connection that IF the gun had discharged, that it might have been the reason the agents shot Pretti, thinking it was Pretti who had his gun (holster was empty, and he had something in his hand) and fired the shot. Arguing that "but Pretti was disarmed" or "it was the agent who had the gun, not Pretti" are ridiculously irrelevant. The gun doesn't have to spontaneously discharge while in Pretti's possession for the officers to understandably react to it, especially when it is highly likely they didn't even know that Pretti's gun was taken by another agent during the chaos. This is just a clueless argument. It demonstrates either a frightening gap in thinking, or a dishonest attempt to dismiss ANYTHING that might absolve the officers to any degree in order to continue promoting the narrative they want.

---

The gap in thinking is that some very conservative people have come to understand Trump and his inner circle are some corrupt folks who will lie about anything, while true MAGA people still follows his words like sheep.

The theory about the discharged gun causing the officers to shoot has some relevance, if Pretti weren't pinned down without any chance to shoot anybody.

The Trump administration is grasping at straws. Straws they are creating. I bet they will find conveniently that the gun had been shot once. Hey, it's in their possession now. Anything is possible.

---

Pretti was not pinned down enough to prevent any chance of using his gun. He wasn't fully in the control of the officers, he was still fighting. What you're demonstrating in your comment is what I've been criticizing on this thread - you're making it more about politics and anti-Trump/MAGA than being objective, and it's shaping your view. What Trump and MAGA think has nothing to do with the merits of this case.

---

ZERO about politics for me. I voted Trump 3 times and will vote for whomever the R nominee is in 2028.

I just don't like seeing citizens killed when there are alternatives, and I sure don't like seeing an Administration who publishes a corrupt judgement against the deceased, with literally no basis in fact.

Pretti was certainly not acting like a choirboy, but his actions did not merit death.

---

There were certainly alternatives - like peacefully protesting instead of agitating, impeding, and assaulting agents. Why is the blame only on the law enforcement side? They're the ones following law, the agitators are not.

---

I've seen plenty of ICE apprehensions and interrogations that are not following any law. They just are doing whatever they wish to do and many times are very agitating and over the top in their reactions to people.

---

You mean like in that video you presented that had absolutely no context? You sure you aren't being manipulated?

But in regards to Pretti's case specifically, ICE was legally there to carry out their duty, and agitators who were impeding them were not.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Do we really need to repeat the same crap from the other three threads ...

It's funny how the LWNJs have seemed to have forgotten about the lesbian that tried to run over the ICE agent.

---

I also wonder if they realize how all of this completely destroys their BLM narrative.

whiterock said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Probably for a similar reason to the one that many card carrying Republicans, and other conservatives, flipped on their 2A stance and used the white guy's mere possession of a firearm as a good enough a reason as any for him to be murdered.

---

Sigh.

The issue is not possession of a gun. The issue is possession of a gun while engaged in hand to hand combat with 4 cops. A very high percentage of people who do that are going to get shot, and justifiably so.

---

Just to be clear on what you are saying, if I am crossing the street, with license to carry a handgun, and I help a woman get up, and then four police officers pepper spray and then tackle me, I am now engaged in hand to hand combat with the police, who do not know that I am armed, and I never put my hand on my weapon at any point in time, I am responsible for me being shot?

I only ask because that is exactly what the video shows happened.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Of course this was a "bad shoot" in hindsight. But not all "bad shootings" are unjustified.

---

It wasn't a bad shoot in hindsight. Anyone who took the CHL class in TX knew it was a bad shoot the second they watched it.

I'd be hard pressed to think of a justified bad shooting, but take a shot (pun intended). I'll listen.

---

A "bad shooting" in my mind is any time a person who isn't actually an immediate threat gets shot. It becomes justified, however, if that person is reasonably mistaken to be an immediate threat. Spontaneous gun discharges would fit that bill.

So tell us why and how you immediately knew it was a "bad shoot" the second you watched it.

---

So, using your logic, this bad shoot would be justified because the perceived immediate threat justifies whatever happens: Two men break into my home. They beat up my family. A week later, I hear what I believe to be someone breaking down my door. I open fire. Turns out, it was some drunk dude at the wrong house.

Is this a justifiable shoot? I had reason to believe something bad was happening and under the Castle Doctrine, I can stand my ground. The man was doing something wrong, but not illegal and was not an immediate threat according to the police after their investigation.

You're on my jury. How do you vote? Guilt or not guilty?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So tell us why and how you immediately knew it was a "bad shoot" the second you watched it.

---

I saw a man crossing the street. The video shows this. I can't tell that he is armed in the video. This means he is concealing his weapon properly as required by law.

I then see a man help a woman up. Again, not against the law.

I then see an ICE agent engage the man. The man may or may not have said something to the officer, but let's assume he did. Still no laws are being broken.

The ICE agent then pepper sprays the man. I don't know if you have ever been pepper sprayed, but it is not a fun experience. This man is no longer a threat to the cop even if he did say something offensive to the cop.

The ICE agent(s) then tackle the man. He's now detained. There is no reason to shoot a man on the bottom of a dog pile. I was a teacher and broke up my fair share of dogpiles. I was never scared of the kid on the bottom of the dog pile hurting me.

One ICE agent leaves the dogpile with the man's gun. He is now on the bottom of a dogpile and weaponless. There is no legal need to shoot him.

You said spontaneous gun discharge, but there is no video evidence this happened. We are also nine days post shoot, and no evidence from anyone indicates this gun discharged. While this weapon is know to discharge (but if it is a post 2017 model, the error has been corrected), this one did not. There is no need to open fire.


Let's do another story. You are crossing the street (armed, but legal). You see me push down a woman. You help the woman up.
Me: Sir, you can't do that. Mind your business.
You: **** you dude.
Me: I pepper spray you, and my three buddies you didn't see, help me tackle you. We get you on the ground and one of my buddies takes your gun away from you. One of my buddies yells gun, so I open fire and kill you.

Did I murder you?

If you say yes, why is it murder for me to do it, but change my buddies to cops and you to Alex and all the sudden this is a justifiable shoot?

If you say no, why are you committing jury nullification if you are on my jury?

1. You are still ignoring that Pretti did not have his permit or identification. That makes the gun illegal ab initio

2. Pretti is still responsible for his gun (he is the only person aware ahead of contact that he is armed). That Pretti made no mention of his gun was a significant contributing factor to his responsibility in the incident.

Oldbear83 said:

---

1. You are still ignoring that Pretti did not have his permit or identification. That makes the gun illegal ab initio

2. Pretti is still responsible for his gun (he is the only person aware ahead of contact that he is armed). That Pretti made no mention of his gun was a significant contributing factor to his responsibility in the incident.

---

What's your evidence for #1? I have not seen any news outlet report this. But even if you are right, it is a misdemeanor in MN to carry your gun without your license on your person.

You are dead wrong on #2. In Texas, you are right, but in MN, you only have to tell an officer you are armed if he asks you ( Minnesota Statute 624.714, Subd. 1b).

Not surprised you have ignored everything posted that doesn't support your side.

And good luck telling a judge you are not responsible for a gun you never told anyone about.

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Of course this was a "bad shoot" in hindsight. But not all "bad shootings" are unjustified.

---

It wasn't a bad shoot in hindsight. Anyone who took the CHL class in TX knew it was a bad shoot the second they watched it.

I'd be hard pressed to think of a justified bad shooting, but take a shot (pun intended). I'll listen.

---

A "bad shooting" in my mind is any time a person who isn't actually an immediate threat gets shot. It becomes justified, however, if that person is reasonably mistaken to be an immediate threat. Spontaneous gun discharges would fit that bill.

So tell us why and how you immediately knew it was a "bad shoot" the second you watched it.

---

So, using your logic, this bad shoot would be justified because the immediate threat justifies whatever happens: Two men break into my home. While they are coming through the door, I discharge my weapon. In the chaos, I never noticed the woman walking down the sidewalk. One of my shots is high (or goes in between the intruders), strikes her in the head, and she dies (she doesn't have to die in your scenario thought).

1. Am I responsible for her death? Yes or no?
2. Am I justified in shooting her? Yes or no?

Under the law, you must answer yes to the first question and no to the second question if you are a juror in my trial. I am responsible for what happens with every bullet that I fire under the law.

---

You're misdirecting the issue to a different situation. What a surprise! Stay focused on the situation before us - if someone is reasonably mistaken to be an immediate threat, then the shooting can still be justified. To change your scenario to something more relevant, suppose someone breaks in to your home dressed in all black, and holding a metal object in their hand. You shoot them, but it turns out it was a drunk neighbor who mistakenly thought it was his house, and the metal object was something other than a gun. It's a "bad shoot" because the neighbor wasn't a real threat, but it's completely justified because it's reasonable for someone in that situation to feel imminent danger.

This isn't hard.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Not surprised you have ignored everything posted that doesn't support your side.

And good luck telling a judge you are not responsible for a gun you never told anyone about.

---

I'm willing to acknowledge he wasn't licensed if you can prove he wasn't. Not one single news outlet has said he was unlicensed. And, as I said earlier, even if he was, this is a misdemeanor in MN.

In Texas, you are right. I have to tell the cops. I once witnessed an accident that was a hit and run. When the cop arrived, the first thing I did was hand him my gun license. Texas law is an identify state. MN is not. I even posted the statute. I know the rule because I used to live in WI and occasionally visit MN. All licensed gun carriers should know to research the gun laws of the states they will visit if they are armed. If I didn't break the law, how am I responsible?