BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

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

---

So can we agree that the ID is a non-issue?

El Oso, you are still lying, I see.

Telling.

El Oso said:

---

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.

---

In other words, it's not irrelevant.

Oldbear83 said:

---

El Oso, you are still lying, I see.

Telling.

---

How am I still lying? I admitted Bovine said it. Alex didn't have his license on him.

That's a misdemeanor that will be waived if he shows up to his court date with his license. It doesn't make the shooting a good shoot.

El Oso said:

---

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.

---

Can't let you off too easy - here you said that you "watched the video from the 1 hour 29 minutes to the end", and you then firmly concluded he didn't say it. But he started speaking at the 1:26:28 mark.

WOW. It's just so incredibly puzzling, how you didn't even bother to make sure you were starting from the very beginning of his address, before you decided to be so brazen and arrogant that your conclusion was correct, even doubling down on it? I mean, what credibility do you think your views have, given this kind of sloppy and careless assessment of the facts? This clearly shows that you just don't know what you're talking about and you're BS'ing your way through.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

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

---

So can we agree that the ID is a non-issue?

---

Shouldn't you check with your hero warrior, victoriously atop our bloody bodies?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

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.

---

Can't let you off too easy - here you said that you "watched the video from the 1 hour 29 minutes to the end", and you then firmly concluded he didn't say it. But he started speaking at the 1:26:28 mark.

WOW. It's just so incredibly puzzling, how you didn't even bother to make sure you were starting from the very beginning of his address, before you decided to be so brazen and arrogant that your conclusion was correct, even doubling down on it? I mean, what credibility do you think your views have, given this kind of sloppy and careless assessment of the facts? This clearly shows that you just don't know what you're talking about and you're BS'ing your way through.

---

Seems you jumped in in the middle of the exchange instead of at the end. To be fair, I do that too all the time on these boards.

I'm not asking to be let off. The initial post said it happened in the last 45 seconds. It didn't. So I backed it up to the last five minutes. It still didn't happen. Then I did find when he entered the room and watched it through till the gun popped up on the screen. He pops the gun up during the last 45 seconds as well, so I thought I had watched through. Turns out I missed the 30 second window where it actually happened.

This has never been about possession of the license though. Yes, he did not have it, but that still does not change anything other than Pretti was committing a misdemeanor.

He was still shot after he had been pepper sprayed and was at the bottom of a dogpile.

I just can't see how this was a situation warranting a shooting.

It seems as if you are telling me, if I go to work tomorrow and leave my gun license at home, the cops can shoot me if I question them about what they are doing.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

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

---

So can we agree that the ID is a non-issue?

---

Shouldn't you check with your hero warrior, victoriously atop our bloody bodies?

---

Shouldn't I check with you if I want your opinion?

There it is again, ignoring the fact that Pretti was illegally carrying from the start, and given his known past a tell about his intentions.

Stop lying, please.

Oldbear83 said:

---

There it is again, ignoring the fact that Pretti was illegally carrying from the start, and given his known past a tell about his intentions.

Stop lying, please.

---

He wasn't carrying illegally.

Oldbear83 said:

---

There it is again, ignoring the fact that Pretti was illegally carrying from the start, and given his known past a tell about his intentions.

Stop lying, please.

---

I admitted he was carrying without a license at the time according to Bovine. I've also admitted, maybe on this thread, maybe on others, he kicked in a taillight 11 days before the shooting.

It still doesn't prove intent. I've left my license at home a few times over the years and walked out the door with my gun on my hip and a spare mag in my pocket (I find two to be too obvious in jeans and too heavy in shorts). It happens. It says nothing about my intent. And neither does the extra mag.

You cannot prove intent because he left home without a license.

If that proves intent for you, so be it. It's a massive stretch for me.

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There it is again, ignoring the fact that Pretti was illegally carrying from the start, and given his known past a tell about his intentions.

Stop lying, please.

---

I admitted he was carrying without a license at the time according to Bovine. I've also admitted, maybe on this thread, maybe on others, he kicked in a taillight 11 days before the shooting.

It still doesn't prove intent. I've left my license at home a few times over the years and walked out the door with my gun on my hip and a spare mag in my pocket (I find two to be too obvious in jeans and too heavy in shorts). It happens. It says nothing about my intent. And neither does the extra mag.

You cannot prove intent because he left home without a license.

If that proves intent for you, so be it. It's a massive stretch for me.

---

But you can prove malice, negligence, irresponsibility, etc….

whiterock said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There it is again, ignoring the fact that Pretti was illegally carrying from the start, and given his known past a tell about his intentions.

Stop lying, please.

---

I admitted he was carrying without a license at the time according to Bovine. I've also admitted, maybe on this thread, maybe on others, he kicked in a taillight 11 days before the shooting.

It still doesn't prove intent. I've left my license at home a few times over the years and walked out the door with my gun on my hip and a spare mag in my pocket (I find two to be too obvious in jeans and too heavy in shorts). It happens. It says nothing about my intent. And neither does the extra mag.

You cannot prove intent because he left home without a license.

If that proves intent for you, so be it. It's a massive stretch for me.

---

But you can prove malice, negligence, irresponsibility, etc….

---

Malice--no

Negligence--sure, if you've never left your wallet at home, I will let you throw that stone

Irresponsible--same deal as negligence.

etc. could be anything, so I will leave that alone.

El Oso said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

El Oso said:

---

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.

---

Can't let you off too easy - here you said that you "watched the video from the 1 hour 29 minutes to the end", and you then firmly concluded he didn't say it. But he started speaking at the 1:26:28 mark.

WOW. It's just so incredibly puzzling, how you didn't even bother to make sure you were starting from the very beginning of his address, before you decided to be so brazen and arrogant that your conclusion was correct, even doubling down on it? I mean, what credibility do you think your views have, given this kind of sloppy and careless assessment of the facts? This clearly shows that you just don't know what you're talking about and you're BS'ing your way through.

---

Seems you jumped in in the middle of the exchange instead of at the end. To be fair, I do that too all the time on these boards.

I'm not asking to be let off. The initial post said it happened in the last 45 seconds. It didn't. So I backed it up to the last five minutes. It still didn't happen. Then I did find when he entered the room and watched it through till the gun popped up on the screen. He pops the gun up during the last 45 seconds as well, so I thought I had watched through. Turns out I missed the 30 second window where it actually happened.

This has never been about possession of the license though. Yes, he did not have it, but that still does not change anything other than Pretti was committing a misdemeanor.

He was still shot after he had been pepper sprayed and was at the bottom of a dogpile.

I just can't see how this was a situation warranting a shooting.

It seems as if you are telling me, if I go to work tomorrow and leave my gun license at home, the cops can shoot me if I question them about what they are doing.

---

No, what I'm telling you is that you are either dense or dishonest. And this post of yours is only further proof. If you have to keep mischaracterizing what happened in order to support your view, you're only fooling yourself. It's just so sad to watch someone not be able to break out of his mind programming.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

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

---

So can we agree that the ID is a non-issue?

---

Shouldn't you check with your hero warrior, victoriously atop our bloody bodies?

---

Shouldn't I check with you if I want your opinion?

---

Shouldn't you get yourself checked since you couldn't see that you already had my opinion many comments ago?

El Oso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There it is again, ignoring the fact that Pretti was illegally carrying from the start, and given his known past a tell about his intentions.

Stop lying, please.

---

I admitted he was carrying without a license at the time according to Bovine. I've also admitted, maybe on this thread, maybe on others, he kicked in a taillight 11 days before the shooting.

It still doesn't prove intent. I've left my license at home a few times over the years and walked out the door with my gun on my hip and a spare mag in my pocket (I find two to be too obvious in jeans and too heavy in shorts). It happens. It says nothing about my intent. And neither does the extra mag.

You cannot prove intent because he left home without a license.

If that proves intent for you, so be it. It's a massive stretch for me.

---

But you can prove malice, negligence, irresponsibility, etc….

---

Malice--no

Negligence--sure, if you've never left your wallet at home, I will let you throw that stone

Irresponsible--same deal as negligence.

etc. could be anything, so I will leave that alone.

---

laws are optional. Check,
non-compliance with laws is of no consequence. Check.
contorting law to fit sensibilities is justice. Check.

Behold the rationale for Democrat border policy = do what you want. It doedn't matter anyway.

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.

---

It is highly relevant to the credibility of the witness, counselor. If we can't trust his ability to accurately assess the events in one video, how are we to trust his ability in another?

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

It is highly relevant to the credibility of the witness, counselor. If we can't trust his ability to accurately assess the events in one video, how are we to trust his ability in another?

---

LOL

El Oso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There it is again, ignoring the fact that Pretti was illegally carrying from the start, and given his known past a tell about his intentions.

Stop lying, please.

---

I admitted he was carrying without a license at the time according to Bovine. I've also admitted, maybe on this thread, maybe on others, he kicked in a taillight 11 days before the shooting.

It still doesn't prove intent. I've left my license at home a few times over the years and walked out the door with my gun on my hip and a spare mag in my pocket (I find two to be too obvious in jeans and too heavy in shorts). It happens. It says nothing about my intent. And neither does the extra mag.

You cannot prove intent because he left home without a license.

If that proves intent for you, so be it. It's a massive stretch for me.

---

But you can prove malice, negligence, irresponsibility, etc….

---

Malice--no

Negligence--sure, if you've never left your wallet at home, I will let you throw that stone

Irresponsible--same deal as negligence.

etc. could be anything, so I will leave that alone.

---

We are in agreement here. We are also in agreement that based on what the video says, this guy didn't deserve to die.

I suspect the officer gets prosecuted for manslaughter. And while I appreciate the difficult spot ICE agents are in with lawbreakers like this nurse, that's not an excuse to shoot an unarmed man in the back.

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.

---

It doesn't mean shooting him was acceptable, but there js a decent chance that the entire video was him committing a crime.

We don't know exactly what happened in the moments leading up to his death. Did the officers who killed him have a reasonable belief that killing him was justified? We don't know yet.

Your claim that there was no reason to shoot him after he was tear-gassed is no more supported by evidence from the scene than the speculation that his gun may have accidentally discharged.

Mothra said:

---

El Oso said:

---

whiterock said:

---

El Oso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

There it is again, ignoring the fact that Pretti was illegally carrying from the start, and given his known past a tell about his intentions.

Stop lying, please.

---

I admitted he was carrying without a license at the time according to Bovine. I've also admitted, maybe on this thread, maybe on others, he kicked in a taillight 11 days before the shooting.

It still doesn't prove intent. I've left my license at home a few times over the years and walked out the door with my gun on my hip and a spare mag in my pocket (I find two to be too obvious in jeans and too heavy in shorts). It happens. It says nothing about my intent. And neither does the extra mag.

You cannot prove intent because he left home without a license.

If that proves intent for you, so be it. It's a massive stretch for me.

---

But you can prove malice, negligence, irresponsibility, etc….

---

Malice--no

Negligence--sure, if you've never left your wallet at home, I will let you throw that stone

Irresponsible--same deal as negligence.

etc. could be anything, so I will leave that alone.

---

We are in agreement here. We are also in agreement that based on what the video says, this guy didn't deserve to die.

I suspect the officer gets prosecuted for manslaughter. And while I appreciate the difficult spot ICE agents are in with lawbreakers like this nurse, that's not an excuse to shoot an unarmed man in the back.

---

No one deserves to be die.

However I strongly doubt the ICE agent will be sacrificed on the George Floyd alter.

The perp was white. The fear of wide spread arson is minimal.

This won't end the way the lefties here hope.

Notice how they keep repeating the same lines, like they are a magic mantra which will change the facts?

I mentioned before that the Left has gone back to the 2020 playbook:

• Violent mob actions falsely labeled 'free speech' and 'peaceful'
• Media attention only on the violence, yet blaming law enforcement rather than the mob
• No media attention on the money and organization behind the mobs
• Democrats trying to sell themselves as Constitution defenders, even as they twist the Constitution to serve their purposes

2020 worked because Trump and the GOP tried to work with these groups, and allowed the Left to control the narrative

Trump, and some of the GOP, learned not to trust people opposed to the very pillars of our nation. They have also developed better strategies to address some of the Left's tactics. Americans in general are also fed up with the cost and damage from illegals here.

As long as the Administration makes common sense decisions, they will weather the storm and retain voter support.

Democrats are backing the violence because they are taking heavy losses in voter registration, money diverted from taxes to their groups, and a cultural shift away from collectivism and social coercion.

So, while investigations into the Good and Pretti deaths will undoubtably reveal mistakes and places to improve, the behaviors of Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti will unavoidably demonstrate that law enforcement was limited in possible reactions to the behavior of the mobists.

I believe most Americans are coming to understand that while Good and Pretti are tragic instances, they were activists not innocents, and the media spin won't be nearly as effective as 2020's riots were in influencing voters.