BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In this one all I did was take the cops out of the situation and make us all regular citizens. Outside of that, it is identical to what happened in MN.

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 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?

DHS said he had no identification.

Again, not surprised you ignored that.

And with regard to carrying a gun when confronting law enforcement, the problem you have is accusing the federal agents. If Pretti had advised them he was armed (or just been wise and left the gun behind when he planned to go in the proximity of law enforcement), things would likely have gone very differently.

But none of your posts up to now indicate you want to understand the situation, you just want a political weapon.

El Oso said:

---

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?

---

So, what you're telling me is that when you saw the video, you immediately knew it was a bad shoot, even though you had NO CLUE as to what Pretti was doing before the video, what he said during the video (did he threaten them?), or whether or not there was a spontaneous discharge of his gun or whether there was confusion among the officers over who had the missing gun from Pretti's holster (you're are merely assuming facts not in evidence).

You are a good example of a very biased person who has ideological blinders on and who refuses to be fair and objective. And you keep demonstrating this with every single post.

In your little scenario, if you shoot someone as a civilian in the process of committing a crime (assaulting a woman), then that's a completely different story than what we're talking about here.

Oldbear83 said:

---

DHS said he had no identification.

Again, not surprised you ignored that.

And with regard to carrying a gun when confronting law enforcement, the problem you have is accusing the federal agents. If Pretti had advised them he was armed (or just been wise and left the gun behind when he planned to go in the proximity of law enforcement), things would likely have gone very differently.

But none of your posts up to now indicate you want to understand the situation, you just want a political weapon.

---

You can keep saying that, but when I Google Alex Pretti did not have his gun license on him and DHS says Alex Pretti did not have his gun license on him, I get zero returns that verify that information. If you can provide a link or a video, I will certainly take a look. If you don't have it, I'll assume you are trying to add misinformation.


He has a constitutional right to carry that gun. He has a state right to not tell anyone he is carrying unless he is asked by a police officer. Why are you wanting him to give up his rights?

Not one time I have called for Trump to be impeached. Not one time have I called for ICE to be disbanded, so how am I making this political. Holding the police accountable for their actions is not a political action.

I've represented the situation as it happened in the video evidence in every post. You're the one that won't provide a link to your claim he didn't have his license on him.

Produce that link or a video.

As expected, you cannot support your own position, only attack.

DHS said he carried no ID. You have no evidence otherwise.

But you cannot accept that St Pretti was in any way responsible for his death, so you keep repeating the same crap.

No one murdered Pretti. He made a fatally poor decision.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

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?

---

So, what you're telling me is that when you saw the video, you immediately knew it was a bad shoot, even though you had NO CLUE as to what Pretti was doing before the video, what he said during the video (did he threaten them?), or whether or not there was a spontaneous discharge of his gun or whether there was confusion among the officers over who had the missing gun from Pretti's holster (you're are merely assuming facts not in evidence).

You are a good example of a very biased person who has ideological blinders on and who refuses to be fair and objective. And you keep demonstrating this with every single post.

In your little scenario, if you shoot someone as a civilian in the process of committing a crime (assaulting a woman), then that's a completely different story than what we're talking about here.

---

You're dodging. Answer the questions. A simple yes or no will do except on the last one.

At no time in the video do I see Alex commit a crime. I know he kicked a tail light out 11 days prior, but that's not worth killing someone over either.

I don't care what he said to that cop. I'd even concede he said something very nasty. Once the cop pepper sprayed him, there is no need to shoot him. Once they got him on the ground, there is no need to shoot.

Alex's gun did not discharge. You would think ICE would have said it did by now if it did. We are nine days out and that does help their case significantly.

I don't care how confused the officers were. There are four cardinal rules of guns. One of them is know your target and what is behind it. If you know your target, you know if it is armed are not.

I've assumed no facts not in evidence. I reference the videos. You're the one who keeps mentioning accidental discharge of Alex's weapon even though you have no proof at all this happened. If you do, produce it. Again, yes, that brand of gun has issues. But again, if it is post 2017 model, that issue was corrected. If it discharged, we would see it go off in the video. If it discharged, ICE would say so. Neither of those happened.

Oldbear83 said:

---

DHS said he carried no ID. You have no evidence otherwise.

---

Link or video? I can't find anything on the internet that says DHS says he carried no ID. You can keep repeating it, but it seems you cannot prove it. All you have to do is post the link or video.

Oldbear83 said:

---

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

---

Indeed it does not, under Minnesota law. And even if it did, it wouldn't necessarily make him an imminent threat.

The DHS is a federal authority. Not sure why a video would make them more believable.

And your stubborn fall back on a fantasy scenario does not advance the discussion, it only shows your rhetorical ass.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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

---

Indeed it does not, under Minnesota law. And even if it did, it wouldn't necessarily make him an imminent threat.

---

From CBS:

" Permit-to-carry holders must have some form of ID when carrying their gun, along with their permit."

Here are the rules and data for a permit to carry in Minnesota - CBS Minnesota

St Pretti was in violation of law.

Doesn't make it right to shoot him, but his foolish decision to carry a firearm in this situation certainly contributed to the outcome.

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

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?

---

So, what you're telling me is that when you saw the video, you immediately knew it was a bad shoot, even though you had NO CLUE as to what Pretti was doing before the video, what he said during the video (did he threaten them?), or whether or not there was a spontaneous discharge of his gun or whether there was confusion among the officers over who had the missing gun from Pretti's holster (you're are merely assuming facts not in evidence).

You are a good example of a very biased person who has ideological blinders on and who refuses to be fair and objective. And you keep demonstrating this with every single post.

In your little scenario, if you shoot someone as a civilian in the process of committing a crime (assaulting a woman), then that's a completely different story than what we're talking about here.

---

You're dodging. Answer the questions. A simple yes or no will do except on the last one.

At no time in the video do I see Alex commit a crime. I know he kicked a tail light out 11 days prior, but that's not worth killing someone over either.

I don't care what he said to that cop. I'd even concede he said something very nasty. Once the cop pepper sprayed him, there is no need to shoot him. Once they got him on the ground, there is no need to shoot.

Alex's gun did not discharge. You would think ICE would have said it did by now if it did. We are nine days out and that does help their case significantly.

I don't care how confused the officers were. There are four cardinal rules of guns. One of them is know your target and what is behind it. If you know your target, you know if it is armed are not.

I've assumed no facts not in evidence. I reference the videos. You're the one who keeps mentioning accidental discharge of Alex's weapon even though you have no proof at all this happened. If you do, produce it. Again, yes, that brand of gun has issues. But again, if it is post 2017 model, that issue was corrected. If it discharged, we would see it go off in the video. If it discharged, ICE would say so. Neither of those happened.

---

YOU'RE the one dodging by creating new "scenarios" to get away from the actual one. You've been doing this in all the threads.

YOU answer MY scenario, because it more accurately resembles the Pretti case. We're not gonna go into the weeds by your misdirecting. If you can't/won't answer my scenario which corrected yours for relevance, then it shows that you know you're wrong and so you're just trying to BS your way through this.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The DHS is a federal authority. Not sure why a video would make them more believable.

And your stubborn fall back on a fantasy scenario does not advance the discussion, it only shows your rhetorical ass.

---

I'm now saying DHS did not say this and I'm asking you to prove they did. All you need is a link or a video to prove you are right and I am wrong.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

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?

---

So, what you're telling me is that when you saw the video, you immediately knew it was a bad shoot, even though you had NO CLUE as to what Pretti was doing before the video, what he said during the video (did he threaten them?), or whether or not there was a spontaneous discharge of his gun or whether there was confusion among the officers over who had the missing gun from Pretti's holster (you're are merely assuming facts not in evidence).

You are a good example of a very biased person who has ideological blinders on and who refuses to be fair and objective. And you keep demonstrating this with every single post.

In your little scenario, if you shoot someone as a civilian in the process of committing a crime (assaulting a woman), then that's a completely different story than what we're talking about here.

---

You're dodging. Answer the questions. A simple yes or no will do except on the last one.

At no time in the video do I see Alex commit a crime. I know he kicked a tail light out 11 days prior, but that's not worth killing someone over either.

I don't care what he said to that cop. I'd even concede he said something very nasty. Once the cop pepper sprayed him, there is no need to shoot him. Once they got him on the ground, there is no need to shoot.

Alex's gun did not discharge. You would think ICE would have said it did by now if it did. We are nine days out and that does help their case significantly.

I don't care how confused the officers were. There are four cardinal rules of guns. One of them is know your target and what is behind it. If you know your target, you know if it is armed are not.

I've assumed no facts not in evidence. I reference the videos. You're the one who keeps mentioning accidental discharge of Alex's weapon even though you have no proof at all this happened. If you do, produce it. Again, yes, that brand of gun has issues. But again, if it is post 2017 model, that issue was corrected. If it discharged, we would see it go off in the video. If it discharged, ICE would say so. Neither of those happened.

---

YOU'RE dodging by having to create new "scenarios" to get away from the actual one. You've been doing this in all the threads.

YOU answer MY scenario, because it more accurately resembles the Pretti case. We're not gonna go into the weeds by your misdirecting. If you can't/won't answer my scenario which corrected yours for relevance, then it shows that you know you're wrong and so you're just trying to BS your way through this.

---

I did answer your scenario. Castle doctrine applies, so depending on the state, you have a justifiable shoot.

It is your scenario that bears zero resemblance to the MN shooting. Yours takes place in a house which changes all kinds of rules. My scenario is identical to the video evidence except that no police are involved, so again, did I murder you in this identical situation?

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. (We can't hear the initial exchange, but let me concede Alex was vulgar.)
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?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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

---

Indeed it does not, under Minnesota law. And even if it did, it wouldn't necessarily make him an imminent threat.

---

From CBS:

" Permit-to-carry holders must have some form of ID when carrying their gun, along with their permit."

Here are the rules and data for a permit to carry in Minnesota - CBS Minnesota

St Pretti was in violation of law.

Doesn't make it right to shoot him, but his foolish decision to carry a firearm in this situation certainly contributed to the outcome.

---

We're looking at the same statute, but you're missing the point. There's nothing there about the gun being illegal "ab initio." On the contrary, if you can show after the fact that it was authorized, the charge must be dismissed.

The ID issue is a technicality which is completely irrelevant to any real or even perceived threat at the time of the shooting.

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

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?

---

So, what you're telling me is that when you saw the video, you immediately knew it was a bad shoot, even though you had NO CLUE as to what Pretti was doing before the video, what he said during the video (did he threaten them?), or whether or not there was a spontaneous discharge of his gun or whether there was confusion among the officers over who had the missing gun from Pretti's holster (you're are merely assuming facts not in evidence).

You are a good example of a very biased person who has ideological blinders on and who refuses to be fair and objective. And you keep demonstrating this with every single post.

In your little scenario, if you shoot someone as a civilian in the process of committing a crime (assaulting a woman), then that's a completely different story than what we're talking about here.

---

You're dodging. Answer the questions. A simple yes or no will do except on the last one.

At no time in the video do I see Alex commit a crime. I know he kicked a tail light out 11 days prior, but that's not worth killing someone over either.

I don't care what he said to that cop. I'd even concede he said something very nasty. Once the cop pepper sprayed him, there is no need to shoot him. Once they got him on the ground, there is no need to shoot.

Alex's gun did not discharge. You would think ICE would have said it did by now if it did. We are nine days out and that does help their case significantly.

I don't care how confused the officers were. There are four cardinal rules of guns. One of them is know your target and what is behind it. If you know your target, you know if it is armed are not.

I've assumed no facts not in evidence. I reference the videos. You're the one who keeps mentioning accidental discharge of Alex's weapon even though you have no proof at all this happened. If you do, produce it. Again, yes, that brand of gun has issues. But again, if it is post 2017 model, that issue was corrected. If it discharged, we would see it go off in the video. If it discharged, ICE would say so. Neither of those happened.

---

YOU'RE dodging by having to create new "scenarios" to get away from the actual one. You've been doing this in all the threads.

YOU answer MY scenario, because it more accurately resembles the Pretti case. We're not gonna go into the weeds by your misdirecting. If you can't/won't answer my scenario which corrected yours for relevance, then it shows that you know you're wrong and so you're just trying to BS your way through this.

---

I did answer your scenario. Castle doctrine applies, so depending on the state, you have a justifiable shoot.

It is your scenario that bears zero resemblance to the MN shooting. Yours takes place in a house which changes all kinds of rules. My scenario is identical to the video evidence except that no police are involved, so again, did I murder you in this identical situation?

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. (We can't hear the initial exchange, but let me concede Alex was vulgar.)
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?

---

WHERE did you answer my scenario? A test to see if you're intelligent and/or honest enough to continue this conversation.

Border Patrol conference specifically says 'no ID'

Oh it's not a 'technicality', Sam, it speaks to Pretti's intentions leading up to the incident.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oh it's not a 'technicality', Sam, it speaks to Pretti's intentions leading up to the incident.

---

Likewise false and irrelevant.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

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?

---

So, what you're telling me is that when you saw the video, you immediately knew it was a bad shoot, even though you had NO CLUE as to what Pretti was doing before the video, what he said during the video (did he threaten them?), or whether or not there was a spontaneous discharge of his gun or whether there was confusion among the officers over who had the missing gun from Pretti's holster (you're are merely assuming facts not in evidence).

You are a good example of a very biased person who has ideological blinders on and who refuses to be fair and objective. And you keep demonstrating this with every single post.

In your little scenario, if you shoot someone as a civilian in the process of committing a crime (assaulting a woman), then that's a completely different story than what we're talking about here.

---

You're dodging. Answer the questions. A simple yes or no will do except on the last one.

At no time in the video do I see Alex commit a crime. I know he kicked a tail light out 11 days prior, but that's not worth killing someone over either.

I don't care what he said to that cop. I'd even concede he said something very nasty. Once the cop pepper sprayed him, there is no need to shoot him. Once they got him on the ground, there is no need to shoot.

Alex's gun did not discharge. You would think ICE would have said it did by now if it did. We are nine days out and that does help their case significantly.

I don't care how confused the officers were. There are four cardinal rules of guns. One of them is know your target and what is behind it. If you know your target, you know if it is armed are not.

I've assumed no facts not in evidence. I reference the videos. You're the one who keeps mentioning accidental discharge of Alex's weapon even though you have no proof at all this happened. If you do, produce it. Again, yes, that brand of gun has issues. But again, if it is post 2017 model, that issue was corrected. If it discharged, we would see it go off in the video. If it discharged, ICE would say so. Neither of those happened.

---

YOU'RE dodging by having to create new "scenarios" to get away from the actual one. You've been doing this in all the threads.

YOU answer MY scenario, because it more accurately resembles the Pretti case. We're not gonna go into the weeds by your misdirecting. If you can't/won't answer my scenario which corrected yours for relevance, then it shows that you know you're wrong and so you're just trying to BS your way through this.

---

I did answer your scenario. Castle doctrine applies, so depending on the state, you have a justifiable shoot.

It is your scenario that bears zero resemblance to the MN shooting. Yours takes place in a house which changes all kinds of rules. My scenario is identical to the video evidence except that no police are involved, so again, did I murder you in this identical situation?

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. (We can't hear the initial exchange, but let me concede Alex was vulgar.)
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?

---

WHERE did you answer my scenario? A test to see if you're intelligent and/or honest enough to continue this conversation.

---

My answer to your man in my house with a metal bar is quoted in your post above.

Castle doctrine applies, so depending on the state, you have a justifiable shoot.

Again, your shooting takes place in a house. You changed the scenario. I posted the exact same scenario that happened, but replaced the cops with citizens.

You still haven't answered.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Border Patrol conference specifically says 'no ID'

---

I watched that conference live. He never said that. Maybe you can narrow down the 94 minute post to the time he says what you said he says.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oh it's not a 'technicality', Sam, it speaks to Pretti's intentions leading up to the incident.

---

Likewise But I like being false and irrelevant.

---

Corrected

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Border Patrol conference specifically says 'no ID'

---

I watched that conference live. He never said that. Maybe you can narrow down the 94 minute post to the time he says what you said he says.

---

30-45 seconds before the end. Not surprising you would lie when confronted with the evidence.

El Oso said:

---

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.

---

Nope. It showed him interfering with an arrest, which is a felony. All the dude had to do was let them cuff him and walk him to the car. Instead….he fought the law and the law won.

Inventing facts doesn't help your argument. Quite the opposite. If you stay 30ft away from an arresting officer and peacefully mind your own business, you will not get shot, whether you are armed or not.

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

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?

---

So, what you're telling me is that when you saw the video, you immediately knew it was a bad shoot, even though you had NO CLUE as to what Pretti was doing before the video, what he said during the video (did he threaten them?), or whether or not there was a spontaneous discharge of his gun or whether there was confusion among the officers over who had the missing gun from Pretti's holster (you're are merely assuming facts not in evidence).

You are a good example of a very biased person who has ideological blinders on and who refuses to be fair and objective. And you keep demonstrating this with every single post.

In your little scenario, if you shoot someone as a civilian in the process of committing a crime (assaulting a woman), then that's a completely different story than what we're talking about here.

---

You're dodging. Answer the questions. A simple yes or no will do except on the last one.

At no time in the video do I see Alex commit a crime. I know he kicked a tail light out 11 days prior, but that's not worth killing someone over either.

I don't care what he said to that cop. I'd even concede he said something very nasty. Once the cop pepper sprayed him, there is no need to shoot him. Once they got him on the ground, there is no need to shoot.

Alex's gun did not discharge. You would think ICE would have said it did by now if it did. We are nine days out and that does help their case significantly.

I don't care how confused the officers were. There are four cardinal rules of guns. One of them is know your target and what is behind it. If you know your target, you know if it is armed are not.

I've assumed no facts not in evidence. I reference the videos. You're the one who keeps mentioning accidental discharge of Alex's weapon even though you have no proof at all this happened. If you do, produce it. Again, yes, that brand of gun has issues. But again, if it is post 2017 model, that issue was corrected. If it discharged, we would see it go off in the video. If it discharged, ICE would say so. Neither of those happened.

---

YOU'RE dodging by having to create new "scenarios" to get away from the actual one. You've been doing this in all the threads.

YOU answer MY scenario, because it more accurately resembles the Pretti case. We're not gonna go into the weeds by your misdirecting. If you can't/won't answer my scenario which corrected yours for relevance, then it shows that you know you're wrong and so you're just trying to BS your way through this.

---

I did answer your scenario. Castle doctrine applies, so depending on the state, you have a justifiable shoot.

It is your scenario that bears zero resemblance to the MN shooting. Yours takes place in a house which changes all kinds of rules. My scenario is identical to the video evidence except that no police are involved, so again, did I murder you in this identical situation?

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. (We can't hear the initial exchange, but let me concede Alex was vulgar.)
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?

---

WHERE did you answer my scenario? A test to see if you're intelligent and/or honest enough to continue this conversation.

---

My answer to your man in my house with a metal bar is quoted in your post above.

Castle doctrine applies, so depending on the state, you have a justifiable shoot.

Again, your shooting takes place in a house. You changed the scenario. I posted the exact same scenario that happened, but replaced the cops with citizens.

You still haven't answered.

---

Your answer was in the very post where you said you had already answered it.

WOW.

You clearly are either too dense or too dishonest for this discussion.

And when you replace the cops with citizens, you're completely changing the scenario. There's a world of difference between cops lawfully trying to detain someone and a civilian in the process of a crime fighting with another citizen. Again, too dense or dishonest.

Oldbear83 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Border Patrol conference specifically says 'no ID'

---

I watched that conference live. He never said that. Maybe you can narrow down the 94 minute post to the time he says what you said he says.

---

30-45 seconds before the end. Not surprising you would lie when confronted with the evidence.

---

I just watched from 1 hour 29 minutes through the end. He didn't say it.

He talked about it being an ongoing investigation.
He talked about how it takes good men and women who love their country to protect us.
He then opened it up for Q&A.
First question, I could not hear. His answer was the situation was ongoing and being investigated as similar incidents.
Second question also inaudible. His answer was it was an evolving situation and facts would come to life.
He then shows a picture of the gun.
The conference is then immediately cut off.

Try again.

** sigh **

Yes he did.

By now it's obvious you have no intention to be honest, this is your Crusade and St Pretti your idol.

Good luck with that, I hope you will at least not interfere with law enforcement.

Oldbear83 said:

---

** sigh **

Yes he did.

By now it's obvious you have no intention to be honest, this is your Crusade and St Pretti your idol.

Good luck with that, I hope you will at least not interfere with law enforcement.

---

Just in case others want to watch to see which one of us is telling the truth.
He enters the room at 1:26.
Introduces himself.
Goes through the events of the shooting, starting with who they were looking for.
He does say the man they were looking for did not have a driving license. This all takes place at the 1:27:15 through 1:27:54 mark of the video Oldbear posted. So yes, he does say a person does not have a license (actually he says "driving license") but that person is the person they were coming to arrest.
He then tries to say Alex came to massacre law enforcement because he came armed.
He says Alex encouraged 200 rioters to come to the scene.
He then talks about the person who shot Alex and the training that officer has.
He then lauds ICE officers in general and the way they handle the problems they see everyday.
Then we hit the hour 29 mark and my post above details what happened from there till the end.

So yes, the man they wanted to arrest did not have a driving license. There is still no proof Alex did not have his license to carry on him.

But I'm the one manipulating facts.

The part about identification is just after he notes the target of the operation, Jose Huerta-Chuma. At 1:28:13 we are told Pretti had two magazines of ammunition and "no accessible ID".

Stop lying, please.

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

** sigh **

Yes he did.

By now it's obvious you have no intention to be honest, this is your Crusade and St Pretti your idol.

Good luck with that, I hope you will at least not interfere with law enforcement.

---

Just in case others want to watch to see which one of us is telling the truth.
He enters the room at 1:26.
Introduces himself.
Goes through the events of the shooting, starting with who they were looking for.
He does say the man they were looking for did not have a driving license. This all takes place at the 1:27:15 through 1:27:54 mark of the video Oldbear posted. So yes, he does say a person does not have a license (actually he says "driving license") but that person is the person they were coming to arrest.
He then tries to say Alex came to massacre law enforcement because he came armed.
He says Alex encouraged 200 rioters to come to the scene.
He then talks about the person who shot Alex and the training that officer has.
He then lauds ICE officers in general and the way they handle the problems they see everyday.
Then we hit the hour 29 mark and my post above details what happened from there till the end.

So yes, the man they wanted to arrest did not have a driving license. There is still no proof Alex did not have his license to carry on him.

But I'm the one manipulating facts.

---

1:28:06 mark - "The subject was declared dead on the scene. The suspect also had two loaded magazines, and no assessable ID."

Haven't you embarassed yourself enough?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

** sigh **

Yes he did.

By now it's obvious you have no intention to be honest, this is your Crusade and St Pretti your idol.

Good luck with that, I hope you will at least not interfere with law enforcement.

---

Just in case others want to watch to see which one of us is telling the truth.
He enters the room at 1:26.
Introduces himself.
Goes through the events of the shooting, starting with who they were looking for.
He does say the man they were looking for did not have a driving license. This all takes place at the 1:27:15 through 1:27:54 mark of the video Oldbear posted. So yes, he does say a person does not have a license (actually he says "driving license") but that person is the person they were coming to arrest.
He then tries to say Alex came to massacre law enforcement because he came armed.
He says Alex encouraged 200 rioters to come to the scene.
He then talks about the person who shot Alex and the training that officer has.
He then lauds ICE officers in general and the way they handle the problems they see everyday.
Then we hit the hour 29 mark and my post above details what happened from there till the end.

So yes, the man they wanted to arrest did not have a driving license. There is still no proof Alex did not have his license to carry on him.

But I'm the one manipulating facts.

---

1:28:06 mark - "The subject was declared dead on the scene. The suspect also had two loaded magazines, and no assessable ID."

Haven't you embarassed yourself enough?

---

So glad this utterly irrelevant dispute has finally been settled.

The fact remains that the ID or lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the weapon or the justification of the shooting.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

** sigh **

Yes he did.

By now it's obvious you have no intention to be honest, this is your Crusade and St Pretti your idol.

Good luck with that, I hope you will at least not interfere with law enforcement.

---

Just in case others want to watch to see which one of us is telling the truth.
He enters the room at 1:26.
Introduces himself.
Goes through the events of the shooting, starting with who they were looking for.
He does say the man they were looking for did not have a driving license. This all takes place at the 1:27:15 through 1:27:54 mark of the video Oldbear posted. So yes, he does say a person does not have a license (actually he says "driving license") but that person is the person they were coming to arrest.
He then tries to say Alex came to massacre law enforcement because he came armed.
He says Alex encouraged 200 rioters to come to the scene.
He then talks about the person who shot Alex and the training that officer has.
He then lauds ICE officers in general and the way they handle the problems they see everyday.
Then we hit the hour 29 mark and my post above details what happened from there till the end.

So yes, the man they wanted to arrest did not have a driving license. There is still no proof Alex did not have his license to carry on him.

But I'm the one manipulating facts.

---

1:28:06 mark - "The subject was declared dead on the scene. The suspect also had two loaded magazines, and no assessable ID."

Haven't you embarassed yourself enough?

---

There we go. You finally found it. Yes, Bovine said it. I stand corrected.

But as noted, under MN law, while this is wrong, it is a misdemeanor only and the charge will be voided if the defendant brings his license to his scheduled court appearance.

On rare occasion, I too leave my house without my license to carry (and sometimes even drive). Fortunately, with constitutional carry, the former is no longer an issue in Texas.

I still fail to see how a misdemeanor, that will be expunged when he brings his license to court, makes Alex a man worth killing based on the video evidence.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

** sigh **

Yes he did.

By now it's obvious you have no intention to be honest, this is your Crusade and St Pretti your idol.

Good luck with that, I hope you will at least not interfere with law enforcement.

---

Just in case others want to watch to see which one of us is telling the truth.
He enters the room at 1:26.
Introduces himself.
Goes through the events of the shooting, starting with who they were looking for.
He does say the man they were looking for did not have a driving license. This all takes place at the 1:27:15 through 1:27:54 mark of the video Oldbear posted. So yes, he does say a person does not have a license (actually he says "driving license") but that person is the person they were coming to arrest.
He then tries to say Alex came to massacre law enforcement because he came armed.
He says Alex encouraged 200 rioters to come to the scene.
He then talks about the person who shot Alex and the training that officer has.
He then lauds ICE officers in general and the way they handle the problems they see everyday.
Then we hit the hour 29 mark and my post above details what happened from there till the end.

So yes, the man they wanted to arrest did not have a driving license. There is still no proof Alex did not have his license to carry on him.

But I'm the one manipulating facts.

---

1:28:06 mark - "The subject was declared dead on the scene. The suspect also had two loaded magazines, and no assessable ID."

Haven't you embarassed yourself enough?

---

So glad this utterly irrelevant dispute has finally been settled.

The fact remains that the ID or lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the weapon or the justification of the shooting.

---

so speeding is irrelevant in culpability for a car accident. Got it.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

** sigh **

Yes he did.

By now it's obvious you have no intention to be honest, this is your Crusade and St Pretti your idol.

Good luck with that, I hope you will at least not interfere with law enforcement.

---

Just in case others want to watch to see which one of us is telling the truth.
He enters the room at 1:26.
Introduces himself.
Goes through the events of the shooting, starting with who they were looking for.
He does say the man they were looking for did not have a driving license. This all takes place at the 1:27:15 through 1:27:54 mark of the video Oldbear posted. So yes, he does say a person does not have a license (actually he says "driving license") but that person is the person they were coming to arrest.
He then tries to say Alex came to massacre law enforcement because he came armed.
He says Alex encouraged 200 rioters to come to the scene.
He then talks about the person who shot Alex and the training that officer has.
He then lauds ICE officers in general and the way they handle the problems they see everyday.
Then we hit the hour 29 mark and my post above details what happened from there till the end.

So yes, the man they wanted to arrest did not have a driving license. There is still no proof Alex did not have his license to carry on him.

But I'm the one manipulating facts.

---

1:28:06 mark - "The subject was declared dead on the scene. The suspect also had two loaded magazines, and no assessable ID."

Haven't you embarassed yourself enough?

---

So glad this utterly irrelevant dispute has finally been settled.

The fact remains that the ID or lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the weapon or the justification of the shooting.

---

so speeding is irrelevant in culpability for a car accident. Got it.

---

Speeding may cause a death, but it is far different than driving without a license. The penalty for driving without a license, and you show up to court with the valid license is usually:
1. A dismissal of the charge.
2 A small administrative fine (cheaper than the $200 version if you don't actually have one).

This is because the law distinguishes between driving without a license on your person (a correctable, minor offense) and driving without ever having a valid license (a more serious one).

Seems similar to the I left my license at home penalty Alex would have received if he had lived.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

** sigh **

Yes he did.

By now it's obvious you have no intention to be honest, this is your Crusade and St Pretti your idol.

Good luck with that, I hope you will at least not interfere with law enforcement.

---

Just in case others want to watch to see which one of us is telling the truth.
He enters the room at 1:26.
Introduces himself.
Goes through the events of the shooting, starting with who they were looking for.
He does say the man they were looking for did not have a driving license. This all takes place at the 1:27:15 through 1:27:54 mark of the video Oldbear posted. So yes, he does say a person does not have a license (actually he says "driving license") but that person is the person they were coming to arrest.
He then tries to say Alex came to massacre law enforcement because he came armed.
He says Alex encouraged 200 rioters to come to the scene.
He then talks about the person who shot Alex and the training that officer has.
He then lauds ICE officers in general and the way they handle the problems they see everyday.
Then we hit the hour 29 mark and my post above details what happened from there till the end.

So yes, the man they wanted to arrest did not have a driving license. There is still no proof Alex did not have his license to carry on him.

But I'm the one manipulating facts.

---

1:28:06 mark - "The subject was declared dead on the scene. The suspect also had two loaded magazines, and no assessable ID."

Haven't you embarassed yourself enough?

---

So glad this utterly irrelevant dispute has finally been settled.

The fact remains that the ID or lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the weapon or the justification of the shooting.

---

so speeding is irrelevant in culpability for a car accident. Got it.

---

If by "speeding" you mean having a valid license but leaving it at home...yes, that is quite irrelevant.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

** sigh **

Yes he did.

By now it's obvious you have no intention to be honest, this is your Crusade and St Pretti your idol.

Good luck with that, I hope you will at least not interfere with law enforcement.

---

Just in case others want to watch to see which one of us is telling the truth.
He enters the room at 1:26.
Introduces himself.
Goes through the events of the shooting, starting with who they were looking for.
He does say the man they were looking for did not have a driving license. This all takes place at the 1:27:15 through 1:27:54 mark of the video Oldbear posted. So yes, he does say a person does not have a license (actually he says "driving license") but that person is the person they were coming to arrest.
He then tries to say Alex came to massacre law enforcement because he came armed.
He says Alex encouraged 200 rioters to come to the scene.
He then talks about the person who shot Alex and the training that officer has.
He then lauds ICE officers in general and the way they handle the problems they see everyday.
Then we hit the hour 29 mark and my post above details what happened from there till the end.

So yes, the man they wanted to arrest did not have a driving license. There is still no proof Alex did not have his license to carry on him.

But I'm the one manipulating facts.

---

1:28:06 mark - "The subject was declared dead on the scene. The suspect also had two loaded magazines, and no assessable ID."

Haven't you embarassed yourself enough?

---

So glad this utterly irrelevant dispute has finally been settled.

The fact remains that the ID or lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with the legality of the weapon or the justification of the shooting.

---

Yes, we know. We weren't the ones attempting this misdirect, your hero whom you were cheerleading for was.