> O'Hara said the man was a “lawful gun owner” with a permit. Records show that Pretti attended the University of Minnesota. State records show Pretti was issued a nursing license in 2021, and it remains active through March 2026.
Minnesota permit-to-carry requirements: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/public-services-bca/firearm...
> Q: Do I have to disclose to a peace officer that I am a permit holder and carrying a firearm?
> A: Yes, upon request of a peace officer, a permit holder must disclose to the officer whether or not the permit holder is currently carrying a firearm.
So a U.S. citizen who is a legal, permitted gun owner with no outstanding criminal charges, legally carrying in public, who complies with the law and informs a DHS officer that they are legally carrying, is effectively subject to summary execution without due process. (The penalty for permitted carrying without possessing the physical permit card is $25 for a first offense and forfeiture of the weapon; it would've been his first offense per Minneapolis police.)
If ever there was a 2A violation, it's a federal officer shooting and killing a legal gun owner solely for possessing a gun in their presence.
Cliven Bundy is still grazing his cattle on that BLM land to this day.
The most likely situation is that he actually voluntarily told them that he has a firearm because he is a lawful gun owner with a concealed carry permit. Most gun owners know that this is the best way to interact with law-enforcement, for example, when you get pulled over. But we will not know because these agents do not wear body cams on purpose.
To me, this looks very much like testing the waters. Stephen Miller said, "To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity." ICE has blocked state law enforcement from investigations into the killings. ICE has said they're done with their investigation of the last one, and those fuckers are still working.
Aside from scale, what's the difference?
[EDIT:15-minute chunk of] video that lays out the evidence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rThhm1-g1a8
People have differing opinions, however the opinion most persuasive to me is you only tell them if asked unless the law requires otherwise. Volunteering you have a gun when there is no requirement to do so in my opinion adds unnecessary tension to the situation. IDK about in Minnesota, but in my state there is no duty to inform the police and you can basically only downsides to doing so, since they will be asking before you get into any situation where they're going to be going into your waistband to find out.
In one of the states I lived in, IIRC they changed the law to remove duty to inform because their cops had a history of executing people that informed them.
>> "The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming."
You've misread your link. The "violently resisted" quote is from a tweet by DHS, not local police: https://xcancel.com/DHSgov/status/2015115351797780500
> The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) posted on X further details about what led up to the shooting. "DHS law enforcement officers were conducting a targeted operation in Minneapolis against an illegal alien wanted for violent assault, an individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, seen here," the post reads.
> O'Hara said that Pretti was a “lawful gun owner” with a permit.
> "The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming."
> The DHS wrote that when a federal agent feared for his life, "an agent fired defensive shots." The post also noted that the "suspect" had "2 magazines and no ID."
By any ordinary reading of prose, the article is attributing the quote to O'Hara.
A previous example:
You can watch the video for yourself of an ICE masked thug grabbing a man's carotid artery, when NOT facing a deadly threat, against DOJ rules. You can watch him seize and his eyes roll back. And you can choose to believe your eyes or DHS' lies. What do you think, zahlman?
See full context here: https://www.propublica.org/article/videos-ice-dhs-immigratio...
> In a social media post after the incident and in its statement to ProPublica, DHS did not cite a deadly threat. Instead, it referenced the charges against Zapata Rivera’s wife and suggested he had only pretended to have a medical crisis while refusing help from paramedics. “Imagine FAKING a seizure to help a criminal escape justice,” the post said.
Just visit the link I posted, this will take you two seconds to verify.
https://abc7ny.com/post/minneapolis-shooting-today-federal-a... attributes the quote to DHS
https://www.tpr.org/news/2026-01-24/man-shot-dead-by-federal... says it came from a DHS statement.
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/live-updates/reported-shoo... -minneapolis-federal-agents-protesters/ is, I think, the article you say suggests O'Hara said this, but I believe it was originally incorrect and updated since then
https://x.com/Sec_Noem/status/2015202988923711951 is the tweet from the government using the direct wording
Also, to be obviously, the statement you attributed to O'Hara is inconsistent with what he would say given his role.
While I totally appreciate that you don't like people using emotional verbiage or making false conclusions biased by their own beliefs, the reality here is that basically no objective independent observer would say that the government's statements are true and accurate. And I also think that careful analysis of the videos by that same observer would conclude the agents made an egregious error in the heat of the moment. Constantly doubling down about how you're the rational one, when there is ample evidence otherwise simply weakens your own position and makes people less likely to bother reading what you have to say.
No need to read press releases, your own eyes and ears.
Elisabeth Kübler-Ross did her research solely on people who were dying: people with terminal illnesses, and she studied how they coped with facing their own mortality. Not how other people did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_K%C3%BCbler-Ross
And of course, even for a dying person, this may be total bunk. It is not like some programmed flowchart that people go through five stages of emotional stuff. This is just, like, a framework for further therapy.
I'm actually studying this stuff right now. In the 1980s and 1990s, "The Five Stages of Grief" were basically a household phrase, and everybody talked about them like they were real and true and invariable. But everyone doing the talking had never actually studied the research or even knew who proposed it. They were just parroting headlines.
(Ps I’m sad you deleted your comment to me in the other thread , I was enjoying our conversation, even if you seem a little emotionally disregulated and unstable)
Here's the facts as I see them: A protestor who had a gun he was legally allowed to carry got involved in an incident with ICE/Border Patrol. The protestor was interacting with the agents and other protestors, at which point BP or ICE pepper sprayed him and took him down to the ground. At least 4 different federal officers were physically holding him. at this point it appears they disarmed him (unclear) and then shortly after, shot him.
At no point did the protestor hold the gun in a threatening way while approaching, when he was taken down he did not have a gun in his hands, and while down, it's very unlikely he could access the gun and use it in a way that any reasonable officer would feel unsafe and be required to shoot the protestor.
Based on the videos I've watched, the protestor made some ill-advised choices getting physically involved, but there was no reason for him to be shot. I read various online conservative communities (to try to understand their reasoning) and nearly all the posts I see seem to think that ICE/BP truly made an error here, possibly due to poor training.
I understand your point about the use of emotional terms, I try to avoid them and instead focus on facts and known unknowns, but in this particular situation, it's pretty clear that ICE/BP made an egregious error in a way that is clearly obvious to everybody (even those who would normally support the federal officers) and in denying this, the federal leadership is undermining itself. This is a situation where they could de-escalate and not immediately blame the protestor, while focusing on increasing the training of the ICE/BP officers, rather than taking an aggresive posture.
Not an error. Intentional murder since those victims of unsuccessful abortion know that they are getting away with it.
Given that the Trump goon running this shit show (Bovino) has a fetish for Wehrmacht/SS greatcoats (it looks like an M36 from the photos I've seen) and the behaviour of the ICE goons in general, I'm not so sure it was an error.
My wife who is very offline saw a Bovino photo yesterday and asked me point blank “why is he dressed like a Nazi? he looks like that guy from Man In The High Castle”
He knows, he knows we know, he is proud of it
That said, even our (US) military leadership wore outfits like that (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/22/style/gregory-bovino-ice-...)
What I also find extraordinary is that there is no consistent uniform, for example if you watch the video this post refers to, all the agents are wearing random combinations of personal clothing ("tactical" or "hunting") which makes them look more like a militia than federal officers.
not totally random, that black and white velcro American flag-like patch seems to be a common sight, like all the temu/amazon/walmart mallninja stuff.
its easy to obtain, and coupled with masking, makes it easy pickings for imposters.
none of these guys seem to be wearing helmets, and it seems questionable regarding actual ballistic armor in thier carriers.
The language being used by the president to describe immigrants is on par with how the enemy was talked about during the war on terror. ICE has been told they are immune from prosecution, and the recruitment videos are basically white nationalist cosplay.
Now they are being surged, masked, poorly uniformed, poorly trained into US cities, as if they were Fallujah.
All that happens afterwards is inevitable.
This would imply it was an unintentional mistake which is far from obvious. If they recognized it was an egregious error the perpetrators would be prosecuted and they won’t be.
> training of the ICE/BP officers
What makes you think it’s something they want to avoid repeating in the future? (Not /s)
I’m not sure how you can possibly make that assertion. They disarmed him and then they shot him.
These investigators are not amateurs, and that’s putting it lightly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellingcat
Depends on how you define the word. But yes?
Their decision to escalate the situation in the first place is a clear indication of that.
> no longer posing a physical threat?
Can you show a video of the gun leaving its holster before that then? Or are you saying that merely possessing a firearm regardless of circumstances is grounds for an immediate execution?
This has already been proven to be a lie thanks to the five different videos of the incident in question. They shot him after removing his legal weapon for concealed carry that he was permitted to have on his person.
Oooph. Just watch it.
My patience level is now in the negatives with these kinds of posts, especially the ones that are more upset about people being mean to them than the execution of citizens using their constitutional rights.
Is that right?
Here is a stabilized version: https://www.reddit.com/r/Minneapolis/comments/1qlyj9h/i_did_...
After that agent takes the gun, the agent standing immediately to the left draws and fires into Pretti's back.
Prediction: no answer
It does matter to me. Of course it does matter.
The presumption that it wouldn't matter is why I'm getting so annoyed with these discussions.
I have seen other analyses now, offsite, from people I trust that concur with this shooting not being justified.
So will you now go back and edit all your comments where you adamantly argue that everyone else is incorrect and that the shooting was justified? Or will you leave them up without any redactions or corrections?
One video [1] shows someone walking away from the scene with a gun a fraction of a second before the shooting begins. But I can't see that the gun was removed from the protester.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1qlvpbr/footage_of_the...
I don't mean to diminish the importance of the shooting, which is horrific no matter what one makes of the photos.
It might be clearer if the agents were wearing bodycam videos and that footage was released.
I'm sure you'll still find something in there to quibble with, so have at it. Like, you can't see the guys hands, so maybe he had a second weapon! Could happen!
I don't know if this is your intent or not, but by engaging in this kind of framing you're essentially saying that all violence[1] is excusable by default. We're supposed to live in a society where the opposite is true, I thought.
[1] All violence by your allied authority figures, that is. We both know you wouldn't grant the same grace and charity to the intentions of the protestors.
I have nothing to quibble with the video you linked (which I think must have been released since I made my comment, or I missed it), that makes the order of events a lot clearer, I can see the gun being taken now, and the timing of the shot.
> whether the protestor could possibly have wielded their gun while being restrained by agents, or whether he is disarmed by the gray-jacketed agent, or what caused the agents to fire when they did
Is a list of excuses for the shooting (to wit: "maybe he wielded the gun", "maybe he wasn't disarmed", "maybe they had cause to fire"). It's all things that would have (arguably) made it justified. You'll have to forgive me if I took that for a clear indication of your opinion here.
Like, if you look at something and say "Well, it looks like X happened, but I don't know", it's neutral. If you say "It looks like X happened, but I don't know because it could have been Y or Z instead', you're pretty clearly constructing a sideways argument that "X did not happen". And thus, you'll end up being painted as an X denialist by people on the internet too lazy to find your comment history.
More importantly, when X is phrased in a way that implies intent or motives not in evidence, or plays up the injustice of X in legally irrelevant ways, that's reason to push back in an open Internet discussion.
That's the part that dekhn skipped above, and which I called out. In point of fact "Y and Z" are clearly shown to be false per the evidence, so pontificating about them amounts to pure spin. Creative storytelling in defense of a political point is very bad to begin with, doing it in defense of a killing is horrifying.
To dekhn's credit, he seems shamed enough to be yelling about the implication. I'm not sure that you've made that leap yet.
I disagree that it has that effect. With the assumption of good faith, comments like GP aren't fishing around for an excuse; the point is to highlight what's legally relevant and where there is room to disagree with the interpretation of video.
I don't think it's plausible that defense for the agents would clutch for a straw like "maybe he had a second weapon". That seems sarcastic and not interested in engaging with the argument seriously.
I've seen a couple different videos now (not from any links ITT) and the most commonly shown one seems to have something obscuring the camera at a critical moment. Nevertheless, it seems highly probable that the man is indeed disarmed well before the first shot. But there will still be more that matters:
* Was the first shot fired by an officer who knew that the weapon had already been taken? In particular, could there have been any miscommunication between the officers?
* Did the victim know the weapon had been taken? I don't think it would be likely to succeed in court, but to my understanding the defense could raise the argument that one or more officers perceived that the victim still intended to draw and fire it.
Ultimately, it boils down to establishing whether there was a reasonable perception, on the part of any officer that fired (I can't tell from the video I've seen who fired or how many shots or anything like that), of a threat from the victim meeting the legal standard to respond with lethal force. This is based on "totality of the circumstances" (as in things the officers knew leading up to the moment of shooting), but specifically based on what a reasonable officer would have been able to deduce in the moment (a high-pressure situation), without the benefit of hindsight.
Most analyses I've seen thus far agree that there was not any solid defense here. Certainly it seems much more likely that someone is going to prison for this than in the Renee Good case. The DHS says they will be investigating.
You can’t count the number of gunshots? Huh. And here I thought your handle meant zahl + man.
I did later find video where the gunshots are much more clear.
> [1] All violence by your allied authority figures, that is. We both know you wouldn't grant the same grace and charity to the intentions of the protestors.
This is a disgraceful ad hominem attack. The previous poster's comment is entirely sensible, and it takes a great deal of intellectual dishonesty to portray it as a defense of ICE in any way.
> it takes a great deal of intellectual dishonesty to portray it as a defense of ICE in any way
Regardless of your opinion, I'll portray it as a defense of ICE, anyway.
> > So a U.S. citizen who is a legal, permitted gun owner with no outstanding criminal charges, legally carrying in public, who complies with the law and informs a DHS officer that they are legally carrying, is effectively subject to summary execution without due process.... a federal officer shooting and killing a legal gun owner solely for possessing a gun in their presence.
> This completely misrepresents what happened.
I don't strictly disagree with the idea that "solely for having a gun" is a misrepresentation, either (after all, the ICE agents had guns and they weren't executed), but it's not a "complete" misrepresentation. (The actual misrepresentation is that the victim was helping someone who was being abused by the agents and he had a gun.) Calling it a "complete misrepresentation" is seeking to emotionally prime the reader against the supposed illogic in the parent comment. That is indeed a defense of the ICE agents (and such defenses and excuses can be seen throughout their comment history, hence, I presume, the ad hominem).
Somehow, still, I doubt that's the framing zahlman would accept about the situation, especially given their (obvious) defense of ICE's actions in their initial comment. Yes, the ad hominem statement you refer to should not have been included. But it is surely not intellectually dishonest regardless of how inappropriate it is for this forum. Given the quote from their initial comment, it seems that said dishonesty cuts the other direction.
But also, my defense is not about treating protestors uncharitably. Telling me "We both know you wouldn't grant the same grace and charity to the intentions of the protestors." would still be ad hominem, because my arguments do not rely upon protestors being malicious.
Except for the physical obstruction of justice aspect, which isn't in question. 1A doesn't give people the right to get in an LEO's way when that officer is actively trying to enforce law. Protestors shouldn't physically be in the path of on-duty law enforcement if they expect not to get arrested. Arrest is a natural consequence of "civil disobedience". For a more extreme example, "freedom of assembly" for me and my friends does not extend as far as "assembling" in a tight circle around you that denies your freedom of movement. (Note: I am neither an American citizen nor an American resident, but these principles are not difficult to understand, and not sufficiently different from Canadian law to matter for this discussion.)
But for example in the Good case, I don't believe she intended to run over the officer, but that doesn't matter to the officer's perception of threat. And in point of fact, he was struck (although NYT reported that he wasn't "run over", and then other outlets presented this as if he wasn't struck).
At no point did I claim not to be defending the ICE agents, so let's please not talk about intellectual dishonesty there.
----
Regarding the bit you quoted from me:
I responded prematurely to the situation based on my experience from every single previous discussion of ICE agents I found myself in. I don't see how there's a problem with offering a defense of ICE in general. You can't just say that one side of an argument is barred, if you're going to have a discussion at all. (And the reason HN permits political submissions like this is because they want people in tech to have discussions. The relationship of the story to tech is tangential at best.)
I said "completely misrepresents" because "solely for having a gun" is completely false, and because it should be rejected as absurd a priori. That's just not how entanglements with law enforcement play out, and ignores that probably many lawful gun owners were rightly ignored (given that MN allows concealed carry of handguns). People are seriously now arguing as if they believe that a Republican government is stripping away 2A rights by force. I don't understand how that could possibly pass anyone's sniff test.
But I also said it because it's part of a long string of loaded language — the stuff I went on to dissect. The victim's virtue is played up, seemingly to make the event seem more egregious, even though it's clearly irrelevant to the cause of action. Or else it's being played up to try to bolster the "solely for" case by denying other reasons for the shoot. Regardless of whether it was justified (I agree that it will likely not be found justified), the actual cause of action is clear.
(Having seen multiple videos now, I can't hear the part where Pretti supposedly "informs a DHS officer that he is legally carrying". The part where one of the officers is shouting about he has a gun, would seem to contradict that; because it comes across that the officer first saying it is surprised to see that he has a gun.)
Most importantly, "effectively subject to summary execution without due process" is an unreasonable way to characterize LEO use of lethal force, both in general and I believe in this specific instance. One or more people messed up and this guy shouldn't have gotten shot. But that is miles away from what it would actually take to justify that phrasing. That would require:
* everyone who shot could clearly see, from their own perspectives, that the gun had already been taken away;
* before firing, they took enough time to respond to that change in the situation;
* at the time of firing, they had the mens rea that the victim should die as punishment for what had happened up to that point.
These are simply things that you can't prove with video footage like this. I can't even tell who shot. It's a chaotic scramble recorded from distant third-person perspectives, with important parts of the action obscured from line of sight by other important parts of the action. Yes, there's enough to see the gun being taken away before gunshots (apparently) but that's a lucky break considering everything else. (When I first saw the footage from the angle on the street, I thought it was happening on the sidewalk rather than in front of the parked car; of course the other angle being from the sidewalk disproves that.)
Anyway, I simply can't fathom how you think that the term "complete misrepresentation" is "seeking to emotionally prime the reader". Like, what words could I possibly use instead that aren't supposedly emotionally manipulative, given that I actually did sincerely consider the statement a complete misrepresentation?
For that matter, I think your characterization "helping someone who was being abused by the agents and he had a gun." is still misrepresentative. He was obstructing and resisting. And, yes, he had a gun, which is dangerous any time one gets in a physical altercation with any kind of LEO. People with CC permits should understand that.
An ad hominem argument is an argument constructed around characteristics of a person outside the bounds of what is being discussed. Inferring someone's opinion[1] about the subject under discussion from their text, and explicitly marking so in my text when doing so, is just "debate". Am I wrong? Say I'm wrong and cite why.
Don't call me "disgraceful". Why? Because THAT is an ad hominem attack. In fact the clear offense being taken makes it pretty clear to me that my point landed closer than maybe you're prepared to admit.
[1] You cleverly skipped the point where I even admitted I might be wrong!
"Ad hominem attack" is commonly used to just mean saying something insulting or uncharitable.
> Inferring someone's opinion
You accused that dekhn would treat people unfairly, based on no apparent evidence:
> We both know you wouldn't grant the same grace and charity to the intentions of the protestors.
This is an accusation that the other person is knowingly biased. And it is not, in fact, an inference of "opinion".
> Say I'm wrong and cite why.
There are reasons to object to a comment on the Internet other than being "wrong". Which is what's happening here.
> Don't call me "disgraceful". Why? Because THAT is an ad hominem attack.
You were not called "disgraceful". Your commentary was called disgraceful.
> In fact the clear offense being taken makes it pretty clear to me that my point landed closer than maybe you're prepared to admit.
The person taking offense, the person your comment referred to, and I (the person you originally replied to ITT) are three separate people.
> You cleverly skipped the point where I even admitted I might be wrong!
The only thing in your comment that could be interpreted as such as "I don't know if this is your intent or not"; but that does not refer to the commentary being called out here as an ad hominem attack.
You're right about that. I'm sorry.
No further comment from me in this thread.
It's exactly what this was, though. He was disarmed before being shoved to the ground and beaten with a gas grenade. There is another video which shows that his hands are on the ground or in front of his face, the entire time he's down, long before he's shot.
Watch the fucking videos.
You know you can watch the videos yourself
Didn't age so well. You took the narrative very easily. Might consider "Why".
It seems like a foolish choice for them to reneg on this. They are essentially signaling that you are a trapped rat with no way out.
If Trump can incite violence then he can invoke the insurrection act, or perhaps declare some form of martial law to seize more power. Perhaps even parlay this into cancelling the midterm elections.
Which, given the statistic that a decent percentage of ICE applicants can't get a passing score on an open book test [0] doesn't surprise me.
[0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ice-is-reportedly-hiring-p...
It makes sense if making you feel like a trapped rat is the goal.
I suspect a partial answer might be that many are not in their right minds, are under trained, and over motivated by bonus payments and past divorces.
What actions are you alleging qualifies as confronting? Be specific. Unless I have a wildly different definition of confronting, everything I've read and every video I've seen from different angles shows the opposite.
(This is setting aside the fact that having a concealed carry permit and carrying a legal firearm is not a death sentence in this country.)
Rights aren't rights if you don't get to actually use them.
Right now Americans are learning the lessons of the black panthers: constitutionally protected "rights" are only rights so long as your flexing of them isn't inconvenient to the State. We've been shouting this at McMilitias for decades now.
Not related to this situation, but in the city I live in, it's better to keep it on your person than in your car because kids are breaking into cars precisely because they know people from the suburbs visiting downtown might have one in their glove box.
Have you considered why? It's telling that you haven't answered my question: How exactly did the victim confront law enforcement?
I can't speak for everyone here but frankly, I find these "Would you do X?" questions irrelevant and I struggle to see a good faith reason for asking them. I can think of many bad faith reasons, for example shifting blame to the victim to remove focus from the border patrol agents' actions. Or a more charitable interpretation is you view this as a simple matter of cause and effect: if he didn't bring a gun he'd still be alive; or perhaps, if he stayed home altogether he'd still be alive. Is that your motivation for asking these questions?
Setting aside the fact that no, we don't know those things to be true, I don't think that interpretation of your intent is much better. But you also haven't been forthcoming with why you're placing so much importance on these questions.
You don’t see a problem with that?
What obstruction?
They walked up to him. You are lying by implication that he was obstructing shit unless you mean in the 30 seconds from being dogpiled to shot.
But setting all of that aside (which is a big aside), even if he was confronting them with his camera while armed, the whole bullshit shtick of the second amendment is that being armed should not be a crime much less a death sentence. He did not brandish his weapon or threaten law enforcement in any of the half dozen videos that have been released so far. To be even more clear as a citizen you are allegedly supposed to be protected from summary execution/judgement with or without the possession of a firearm, in many legal circles the possession of a firearm grants you more protections under the law not less.
What’s it called when you name something the complete opposite of what it is?
Not an oxymoron, because that’s about the concepts in the words.
The DHS public statement that the victim was going to “do maximize damage and massacre law enforcement” is outrageous…
Even people just driving through their neighborhood have been dragged out of their vehicles and apprehended. Citizen or otherwise doesn’t seem to matter.
They aren’t professionals and operate with neither the training, nor the will to obey the law.
Much of the time they seem to believe trying to bait folks into an encounter
https://www.reddit.com/r/ICE_Raids/comments/1q7u4kz/ice_agen...
https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1q7y43s/cbp_poin...
In my area all the non white folks don’t come to the bus stop anymore to pickup their kids. Their kids are instructed to race home after school. The schools now have lockdown protocols for ICE. Family businesses opened for decades closed because employees are afraid to come to work.
if the day ever came for ICE to breach a locked down school, and extract minors, that could be a tipping point.
You refuse to watch the videos, but you're still defending the regime. Why?
I question the moral integrity of anyone who would defend this administration without all the available info.
I'm glad you're being flagged, because I've been disappointed with how folks here have been surprisingly flaccid when it comes to condemning this regime. The day that I come here and find posts like yours in the majority will be the last day I visit.
Can you please explain to me how it violates HN guidelines in any way? Or how any of it is untrue? For example, do you disagree that 8 U.S. Code § 1357, as cited, empowers ICE to arrest US citizens without a warrant in specific circumstances, specifically relating to obstructing them from doing their original job? Do you disagree that ICE are, contra the public claims of Walz and Frey, LEO? Did you see my submission https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46596055, and can you articulate a problem with it?
Including https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46749406 , in which I explicitly acknowledged that I do not think this particular shooting was justified?
I already explained repeatedly: I responded hastily based on priors, and then responded poorly to someone who insulted me.
When I initially said:
> All this stuff about permit cards, the victim's lack of criminal history, etc. is irrelevant. It is not connected to the motivation for the shooting. There is nothing to establish that the shooting was "solely for" that possession, and LEO denies that claim. There is no plausible universe in which the officer says "please show me the permit for that weapon", Pretti says "I don't have it", and the officer shoots. But that's the narrative you appear to be trying to push.
Do you think any of that is incorrect? Which part specifically, and why?
And, to be clear, you were okay with me being called a "nazi sympathizer" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46754655)?
I just vouched for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46748563 , which was flagged and killed. Do you think it violates HN guidelines? How exactly? Because I legitimately don't understand.
Tell me the legal rationale for ICE abducting an employee from a Target beating him up and dropping him off bruised and covered in blood at Walmart at miles away.
ICE has been turned into a paramilitary political mafia to harass and harm the administrations political opponents and racial outgroups.
They've repeatedly been found in federal court to have violated the constitutional rights of citizens and non-citizens alike but Congress has shown no spine to reign in the executive which has willfully spurned these rulings.
Turn the blind eye to this at your own peril. History has shown that fascism does not stop acting only against people that you disagree with
The appropriate reaction to being admittedly ignorant about a topic is looking it up or requesting a source. When you a priori decide who was right before knowing the facts, you reveal yourself to be a shill.
What you quoted implies a request for a source. It is not unreasonable to state my priors. That is not "a priori deciding". Your insult is uncalled for and contrary to HN guidelines.
But yeah, it's just not happening, you couldn't possibly just be unaware
Edit: you literally said "i will not watch the videos" - you are admittedly willfully ignorant on the subject, your posts are therefore irrelevant
Interesting the conflicting orders she received were not "lawful".
Her vehicle was across a single lane, prior to the shooting incident vehicles were freely passing, so traffic was not blocked by a common occurrence of a vehicle across a single lane of an icy road.
She was not stopping ICE or DHS from apprehending an immigrant, and the Federal Immigration agents had no authority to deal with traffic matters in MN.
> the conflicting orders she received were not "lawful".
They do not become "not lawful" at your say-so. And she was not "given conflicting orders". That is a propaganda narrative ignorant of basic law. Good was repeatedly told to move (in the initial encounter with Ross, before he begins circling the car, repeatedly refused, then significant time passed. Then she was told to get out of the car, presumably because she was under arrest for refusing to move.
It is the same as how an ordinary local police officer who tells you to leave a property because you're trespassing, is entitled to arrest you (which entails you not leaving) if you repeatedly refuse to leave.
> Her vehicle was across a single lane
It was perpendicular to the road, and parked. That's obstruction. The fact that cars could get around does not mean they "were freely passing". And as you point out, the road was icy; that makes this situation more dangerous, and the blocked lane a more serious obstruction.
> She was not stopping ICE or DHS from apprehending an immigrant
She was significantly impeding them, in a manner that can very easily be argued to meet the necessary standards in the relevant legal code.
> and the Federal Immigration agents had no authority to deal with traffic matters in MN.
8 USC 1357 makes it clear that they can make arrests for federal crimes committed in their presence. This includes obstructing them, which is by definition done in their presence and is a federal crime by virtue of the fact that they are federal officers. And as LEO they can generally issue lawful orders. The fact that she's in a car doesn't somehow deny them jurisdiction. They aren't "dealing with traffic matters"; they're dealing with obstruction of justice.
https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/miramar-martinez-shooting-...
https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/miramar-martinez-shooting-...
https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/miramar-martinez-shooting-...
Edit: thanks for showing you were literally unaware!
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/evidence-contradicts-trump-...
It doesn't agree with reality.
> The people "being dragged out of vehicles" have been refusing lawful orders and then being arrested for it.
"Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'" — Martin Luther King Jr.
> But no, being a citizen does not, in fact, matter if you are breaking federal law in the presence of a federal agent, and that law includes obstruction of federal justice. All of this is extremely clear in law.
“The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.” — Henry David Thoreau
When the pepper spray is pointed at your face and they are screaming "BACK UP" what do you do? Scream back "dat's illegal! muh muh rights!!1" What do you do when the flash-bangs and tear-gas canisters explode? Cover your nostrils with your extra-thick copy of the Bill of Rights?
I mean, law enforcement was speaking to the press today, saying they're not interested in "herding you to safety" or protecting people who are actively interfering. They would much rather if you weren't there at all. The job would be done expediently. But if people choose to impede stuff, and defend and protect child molesters, drug smugglers, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, sex offenders, gun runners, then you get a war zone. This is how you get war zones. By defending and protecting the indefensibly guilty.
This is some peak "sovereign citizen" stuff right here. All you lefties screaming about "warrants" and "rights" and "kidnapping" and "jackboots" are SovCit in disguise. You have written your own constitution and you're carrying it out in the streets. Good luck, SovCits.
Have you considered the potential bias that people are dragged out of their cars before they can start recording video? Perhaps the dragging out of the car happens while nobody is recording them, then people see and start recording for posterity. That seems an obvious assumption. Do you have reason to think otherwise such that you can dismiss others' reports with intellectual honesty rather than motivated reasoning?
> This comment, like many others I've made on the topic, has been completely illegitimately flagged. I'm getting rather tired of that.
> It perhaps just doesn't agree with your point of view.
I don't really agree with the flags but this casual dismissal of "you just don't like it" is not helping you to understand the actual reasons others may have to flag (and downvote, which I do agree with). For example, maybe others watched the videos and think there is no way to justify what they saw. To such an individual, seeing someone try to justify it might look like trolling regardless of said someone's self-perception of their commentary. You will get nowhere merely complaining about the flags and downvotes; they will keep coming (on this topic) until you start to comment more thoughtfully (on this topic), or not at all.
All such video has been third-person perspective, so no.
> Perhaps the dragging out of the car happens while nobody is recording them, then people see and start recording for posterity.
In the cases where video shows events prior to the arrest, it shows justification for the arrest. Activists have a clear incentive to hide that justification. So why would I take claims at face value about the existence of unjustified arrests where nobody started recording before the arrest?
> Do you have reason to think otherwise such that you can dismiss others' reports with intellectual honesty rather than motivated reasoning?
The repeated prior experience of seeing people make reports, look them up, and find that they've been misrepresented, yes.
> For example, maybe others watched the videos and think there is no way to justify what they saw. To such an individual, seeing someone try to justify it might look like trolling
I disagree that this is a legitimate reason to flag a comment, according to my reading of the guidelines.
"The videos" doesn't refer to a specific set of videos. I'm talking here about cases where people claimed that something (not the incident that OP is about) had happened in a specific way, and I had already seen video that disproved the narrative. If they saw a different video, or a clip of the video, or a social media rumour, and their emotions are running high because they can't imagine a justification, that isn't my fault.
(For example, a sibling comment is pushing the "kidnapping and arresting" narrative for the child taken directly back to his home. We already saw during Trump's first term that the activists will raise hue and cry about "families being separated" by ICE; now they can't put the family together either.)
And I'm talking about cases where people bring up some other random thing that they totally know happened, that I haven't heard of at all, and they don't proactively bring evidence but how dare I not know about it. Always described with a flurry of emotionally charged language. My priors are that all of this will evaporate under scrutiny, because of what I have experienced before when trying to look into things. This extends generally to protests of this nature before the current administration's use of ICE, too.
And I'm talking about cases where people seem to have entirely wrong ideas about what the law actually permits. I get flagged, for example, when I make posts that consist of nothing but the evidenced truth about ICE's legal powers and what is or isn't a legitimate protest action. See e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46750452.
It's hard for me not to perceive that I get flagged for no reason other than being on "the wrong side" of a contentious political issue, because people can't fathom that an honest person who tries to research claims could possibly disagree with them so starkly in good faith.
But I do research these claims (although there's only so much time I'm willing to put into them).
I did research this story.
And I already previously reported back (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46750401) that I now generally agree that this specific shooting looks unjustified (certainly it at least requires an investigation, which I would have said anyway, like for any high-profile LEO use of lethal force).
I'm just not going to continue a direct chain of replies with people who openly insult me. I'm still human.
Meanwhile, comments where people just openly go "Nazi, Nazi, Nazi", "fascist, fascist, fascist", spewing outrage without substance, stay visible incognito.
> You will get nowhere merely complaining about the flags and downvotes; they will keep coming (on this topic) until you start to comment more thoughtfully (on this topic), or not at all.
This is effectively intimidation.
Do you think it is not worth considering?
> This is effectively intimidation.
I'd suggest reading it again more carefully; it is a call to be more thoughtful (I literally use that word). Again, you're not going to get anywhere with complaints about the responses to your comments.
Because it is third-person video, "dragged out of their cars before they can start recording video?" is moot. There is nothing preventing the third person from starting the recording earlier, and indeed they have done so in many cases.
> I'd suggest reading it again more carefully; it is a call to be more thoughtful (I literally use that word).
I read it just fine. You speak of more "thoughtful" posting, but I can find no charitable way to interpret this, because I am not violating HN guidelines but I am getting flagged anyway. I notice that you ignored the point about other people flagrantly violating guidelines without consequence because they have the approved opinions. I also notice that you did not try to defend the flagging of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46750452 . Instead, you argue that it is my responsibility to not let other people perceive my strong disagreement as inherently trolling, or else not post at all.
The net effect of this is to suppress strongly dissenting opinions, under threat of further community action ("flags and downvotes... will keep coming (on this topic) until..."). Hence, intimidation.
I think it's unfortunate you call it suppression instead of rejection but I am otherwise more than okay with these thoughtless opinions (thanks for admitting this is your opinion instead of trying to hide behind things you call factual analyses) being rejected by the community. Though, not rejected so much that the opinions can't be addressed (hence not flagging them) because others should have a chance to weigh in. Ironically, I've been foiled by comments being flagged when posting comments; the result was actually my speech being prevented from responding to someone else's.
Regardless, a threat of a downvote is hardly "intimidation" and calling it such is emotional rhetoric. Especially calling it a threat of "community action"; it's not like I'm speaking for anyone but myself. Nobody's out to get you personally, they just don't like America's gestapo being normalized and excused, which your posts happen to do regardless of being within the guidelines.
> You speak of more "thoughtful" posting
Think about the effects of posting something which seems to normalize or excuse the actions being taken by ICE, especially their needless escalations which have twice resulted in something that is reasonably called murder. I suspect you will arrive at the conclusion that these aren't murders (or that their actions are already normal and/or excusable) and therefore you are simply cannot be normalizing and/or excusing their actions. Of course, such thoughtless posts will be flagged and downvoted; that is still not intimidation to suppress opinions but an obvious conclusion based on simple observation. One might consider, with an open mind, whether a community-rejected post is legitimately in bad taste. That is what I mean.
> but I can find no charitable way to interpret this
Your reading comprehension was, and appears to still be, lacking. Being unable to find the meaning is not evidence that the meaning doesn't exist. It's possible you just gave up too soon when searching for it. Such is the nature of learning.
> Regardless, a threat of a downvote is hardly "intimidation" and calling it such is emotional rhetoric.
is blatantly misrepresentative. I said the word "flag" over and over and over again and did not talk about downvotes; and I referred to the effects of flagging (a comment in my history that is [flagged] in the view presented to me cannot be seen even with a direct link in a private browsing tab; a comment that is downvoted, even to -4 but without flags, can be).
You scold me for lack of reading comprehension, and then condescend to me about the "learning" process, but you overlook a central point that I made abundantly clear and attack a strawman.
And you completely disregard everything I've shown you about how I've been treated unfairly in this situation.
> I suspect you will arrive at the conclusion that these aren't murders (or that their actions are already normal and/or excusable) and therefore you are simply cannot be normalizing and/or excusing their actions. Of course, such thoughtless posts will be flagged
Again setting aside downvotes because I did not complain about downvotes:
That is unfair treatment. It does not violate HN commenting guidelines to express that conclusion. My conclusion is justified by extensive research and by prior general awareness of how LEO operates and what happens at protests. It is not at all "thoughtless" to say so; I put considerable thought into this, and have brought forward large amounts of evidence and reasoning. It is frankly offensive to tell me otherwise.
I am simply not "thinking" about the specific matter of whether other people will have a strong emotional reaction to being told that the thing they consider murder might in fact be legally justified. Because I care about truth; and because HN (in principle, to my understanding) only tolerates these submissions because of the potential for actual discussion, which involves people disagreeing about things.
You've made it abundantly clear, by this, that no matter how I actually went about it, you would consider it inappropriate to make comments that suppose that ICE agents (citizens with due process rights, BTW) might not have committed murder, and would consider that it's inappropriate that comments making any argument of that form are permitted to remain publicly visible (again: flagging, not downvoting); only concurrence is okay.
And many recent political threads have made it abundantly clear to me where that leads: an environment where people chant "Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, fascist, fascist, fascist" — despite the admonitions "Be kind." and "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." Maybe you're okay with that, but I'm not. The solution to divisiveness is not to exclude one side of the divide.
This isn't ambiguous: yes, any behavior which normalizes and/or excuses these actions is not appropriate, no matter how said normalization and/or excuse is delivered. That is surely not against this site's ethics because...
> And many recent political threads have made it abundantly clear to me where that leads: an environment where people chant "Nazi, Nazi, Nazi, fascist, fascist, fascist" — despite the admonitions "Be kind." and "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." Maybe you're okay with that, but I'm not. The solution to divisiveness is not to exclude one side of the divide.
When one side of the divide is driven almost exclusively by their hatred of others, it is of course reasonable to reject them as hateful. At this point, calling something "fascist" is primarily intended as a description; it's not an insult except to the fascists who aren't brave enough to wear it on their sleeve. It's rather thoughtless to disregard that simple observation.
Sure, maybe you don't see that ICE are murdering citizens who are doing nothing wrong but that doesn't mean your opinion is unequivocally right or even needs to be given any consideration by others. Sure, maybe you can say you observe things differently but that doesn't mean others' observations are invalid, nor that people need be respectful to your behavior which has the effect of normalizing and excusing what they observe to be terrible things.
That is the thoughtfulness I am suggesting; the thought you might consider is that others are rejecting your comments because said comments ignore these observable facts of community. These comments which have people chanting "fascist" can objectively meet all of the site guidelines and they will be rejected simply for being in extremely bad taste. For an example, consider that Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal meets this site's guidelines. Of course a post genuinely suggesting that we eat poor children is going to be rejected, regardless of the sugar coating with which it's delivered.
> And you completely disregard everything I've shown you about how I've been treated unfairly in this situation.
Something you have also missed is that you completely disregard everything others show you about how the protesters have been treated unfairly by ICE in their situations (your complaint is that your opinion is disregarded, yet you disregard others' opinions); I am entitled to my opinion as you are yours and my opinion is that your supposed unfair treatment is something that can be disregarded as such. To say otherwise would be to deny others their opinions to reject your thoughtless commentary as such. In other words, your perception of such rejection as unfair treatment is a personal problem which has no place affecting the opinions others choose to express (say, by flagging your comment).
People are telling you to stop carrying water for fascists; complaining about how they do that (flagging your comments), rather than considering why they do it is, indeed, thoughtless.
I see why your post was flagged. You argued that the Good shooting was justified by referencing a video in which "laywer" (who has links to paypal and patreon, I guess his law career is going great) among other things called her in his words "motorist who was blocking traffic" (ignoring that some other SUV easily drove past Good's car in the same video a few seconds before) and where he said the officer was "trying to get from in front of the car" while the officer clearly was trying to block the car's path while approaching the car. If the officer was trying to unblock the road he would not block the car. If the officer was trying to stop the car he could shoot the tires. It's clear he wanted to kill the driver. And that's not a justification
> Activists have a clear incentive to hide that justification.
Don't forget ANY video you see on social media has incentives for something or something else.
Your objection to this boils down to a simple disagreement with the findings, and unjustified ad hominem. (There is no good reason to doubt that Nate the Lawyer is in fact a lawyer: he asserts so and makes appropriate disclaimers on his channel, he clearly shows reasoned legal arguments, he's been interviewed by others who accept the claim, he is accepted by all the other well-known lawyers on Youtube, etc.) I could have posted different analyses by other lawyers; most of what I've seen has been rather more strident and more at risk of offending those who think the shooting unjustified. In fact, as far as I can tell, LegalEagle is the only prominent lawyer on Youtube who disagrees that the Good shooting was justified, repeating a common pattern. Whereas many other Youtube lawyers concur that the Pretti shooting is at least problematic.
I hope you'll pardon me for not hiring a lawyer and paying just to get an opinion and copy-paste it to HN.
Flags cause posts to be hidden from logged-out public view. They warrant, therefore, that a comment violates guidelines and needs to be censored rather than simply being disputed.
Consequently, "you argued [something I disagree with]" doesn't become a reason to flag a post in itself.
----
As for the substance of your disagreement: I'm not going to get into my disagreements on things I've already repeatedly rehashed, but this argument is new to me:
> If the officer was trying to unblock the road he would not block the car. If the officer was trying to stop the car he could shoot the tires.
First off, no, the point is that he was responding to a reasonably perceived threat of death or serious injury. It has nothing to do with either of those things.
Second, now that she has blocked the road and repeatedly refused to leave (including the interaction with Ross before the other officers arrive), she is being detained, and probably under arrest. That is a response to the obstruction, which is a federal crime (because they are LEO being obstructed) committed in the federal officers' presence, giving them the right (as LEO) to perform an arrest under https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357 (a)(5). That's what was going on before she initiated the 2-point turn. The agents' presumed desire to have a clear road does not obligate them to take actions that would lead to a clear road; and it especially does not obligate them to let someone go free after committing a crime.
Third, it would have been quite impossible from his vantage point as the car starts moving forward, because the hood of the car would be in the way. He could only possibly shoot at the tires once he is will clear of the vehicle to its side; even then, he was struck and knocked off balance which would have made it quite difficult to aim with that intent.
Fourth, the law admits the possibility (which I agree with Nate is likely to hold up in court) of justifying shooting at Good specifically because of a self-defense argument. That argument could not apply if Ross managed to get out of the way and then started firing after that point. (It does cover shooting multiple times, including from the side, because human reflexes and police training to fire multiple shots come into play; the shots can easily be argued, with abundant precedent, to represent a single decision to fire the weapon.) And it certainly could not apply to shooting the tires of the vehicle. In general, LEO don't shoot at tires, for many good reasons that are easily looked up (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=can+officers+shoot+tires).
Those are kids playing to be cops. If the PS5 was affordable to people with such a low level of education they'd be playing CoD at home.
Local cops dealing with protesters are organized, rarely trying to bait anyone into anything.
Many of them are experienced and trained. The man who shot Renee Good served in Iraq, worked for Border Patrol for two decades and was literally a firearms instructor[1].
This is just what cops, reactionaries and psychopaths will do when they know that they have carte blanche to do anything they want, including murder.
No amount of "training" will fix this. It isn't an accident, it isn't incompetence, it is deliberate and wanton.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Ren%C3%A9e_Good#Jon...
So assuming it's random lack of training when he does it again seem far too charitable.
He also has a history of doing exactly this before. It's the second time he was "struck" by a moving vehicle after purposely putting himself in his purported harms way. Who knows how many times he's practiced for this murder before.
If the video somehow didn't do it, the "fucking bitch" not even seconds after pulling the trigger would put any one of us away for murder.
[1] https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/us-border-agents-i...
The checks and balances at the federal level are all captured. Support Minnesota in this troubling time.
If anyone views the current situation as a problem, there is no viable solution that doesn’t involve removing MAGA from power.
Oh boy the hand waving away at the time. Now the other shoe is dropping.
Law enforcement above accountability is a hallmark sign of “too far gone”.
The greater the force and amount of armament, the worse it can end up becoming.
It wasn't good when it happened in the 19th century either.
What I see is that some of them seem to display even more of a killer attitude than professional soldiers, and bring a whole additional supply of firepower to each scene when they arrive that was not in the equation before.
With that level of highly-armed government-initiated risk introduced, it looks like in almost any neighborhood where there is normally about zero yearly risk of someone being killed, when the "troops" are sent in the risk skyrockets.
On a daily basis too which is too frequent to ignore and a virtually incalculable increase, but you don't need numbers to see how bad it is.
There’s a lot to be worried here, but I’m surprised that’s what you are more worried about
There is no doubt in my mind that the the current DOJ won’t lift a finger against any of the agents involved
Because Pam Bondi/DoJ refuses to prosecute these cases, this will _keep happening_ for the foreseeable future. There's no reason for ICE to stop this behavior.
Its not today's crime that scares me most. Its the easily predicted future where this gets worse by next month.
The converse is the rise of the far-left. We're already seeing Black Panther patrol with long-guns rise up in these times in response to this. I expect more guns and more deadly force, and no one is doing anything to put a stop to it.
--------
The left is losing faith in strictly peaceful protest. At least some of them (ie: the Black Panthers forming patrol militia).
The right refuses to prosecute murders. This is the worse problem.
Where does this lead? Is it too late to stop? Its easily stopped if Pam Bondi simply did an investigation into the use of deadly force. That's the saddest part of all of this.
And the worst part is, I don't even know what I'm supposed to say to them anymore. The shooting today 100% proves the Black Panthers correct.
Don't bother replying, youre going to make some argument about how that was a non peaceful protest because of the politics, but this was a peaceful protest despite the government violence.
They tackled him. Beat him. And executed him in the street.
Fuck you for victim blaming. You’re wrong an uninformed at best. Complicit at worst
We don't live in the time of Ghandi anymore.
It's not just that the DOJ won't investigate. It's actively preventing the state from investigating either.
if this continues, it's going to explode, and I think that's part of the plan, to provide cover for invoking the Insurrection Act and imposing martial law
1. Only had parking tickets on his criminal record. No other criminal activity.
2. Owned a gun with firearms permit.
3. 36 Years Old, male. EDIT: I misremembered. Its apparently 37 year old male.
Minnesota Police only have jurisdiction inside of Minnesota however. So those four+ ICE shooters just need to leave the state and they're safe. The FBI is required to pursue across state lines.
Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara had a press briefing a few hours ago.
None of that should really matter here. He didn't have his gun when he was shot the first time. He wasn't moving after the first shot and the 5 shots later were completely unnecessary and dangerous to the general public.
This sort of hair splitting is gross. Even if he illegally possessed the gun, the execution wasn't justified. He was not brandishing and nobody was in danger because of his possession of the gun.
Don’t “apparently” this crowd when you are obviously JAQing off.
I'm pretty sure you're the same guy I told I'm for completely open borders, but somehow you got it in your head I'm trying to make excuses for ICE. I'm also of the opinion that the second amendment also applies to illegal immigrants, though the courts generally don't agree with this. But you decided I said some things you consider "right wing" earlier so I must agree with whatever Trump's Gestapo is doing.
The truth is, I couldn't even wrap my head around why they were even arresting the guy, because I couldn't understand why they were going after someone with a permit, which usually requires legal status. My interest relates to the fact that if the federal courts in his jurisdiction didn't agree out of status had 2A rights, and he had a valid permit and legally owned a gun, it should establish he shouldn't be of interest to ICE.
Nope.
You're asking about the immigration status of a guy we all watched get executed.
JAQ off harder.
Him being in-status is damning to ICE, not the victim.
JAQ off harder.
Oh, wait, you meant the victim.
(To borrow a meme.)
So we might as well stop arguing that the government should have a monopoly on tools of violence. These people should be afraid of us, and not the other way around.
When those people are ICE it definitely is. I think those motherfuckers should be wearing straightjackets
When it's over, and it will be, Americans need to start from scratch, iterate and write a new constitution, create new institutions and build a new system.
It's almost as if those laws are mostly just performative bullshit that doesn't actually prevent the spread of violent ideologies when the environment is conductive to them.
The 2nd amendment was more about suppressing slave revolts than liberating slaves.
The video clearly shows the grey-masked (EDIT: Grey-hat, green mask) ICE Agent taking the gun and running away with it before everyone else shoots him.
Also, I'm inclined to believe the "arrest" was an illegal arrest to begin with. I had a big post about how police procedure and due process is supposed to work but I know no one gives a crap about due process anymore, so forget it.
I agree he was unarmed at the moment he was shot. But he was actively assaulting another person at the moment of the arrest (the woman with the red/orange backpack[0]).
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1qlww2j/pink_lady_free...
> Also, I'm inclined to believe the "arrest" was an illegal arrest to begin with.
The ICE agent does an almost comical shove to that woman, then the shot guy and her are pepper sprayed, and he tries to help them up.
You are actively lying or schizophrenic. If anyone disagrees with that assesment watch the video he linked.
This kind of personal attack isn't welcome here so I won't be engaging with you.
Tell me the EXACT time in the video you see this happen.
In the video, there are 4 ICE agents on him and there's not ONE frame where the tackled protester reaches for ANYTHING with his arm/hand. There is, however, a gray-masked ICE agent consistently reaching for what appears to be the protestor's sidearm. And at 0:17, the ICE agent that shoots first reached for his own sidearm, and the ICE agent next to him retrieves what appears to be the protestor's concealed firearm at the same time, and walks away from the pile with it BEFORE shots are even fired. The "threat" - the protestor's right to bear arms - was eliminated before a shot.
There is not a single indication that ICE agents were in danger from anyone besides each other. If he was shot dead for possession, there's your answer for 2A, right there. They're shooting people like dogs in broad daylight for recording police interactions (1A) and possessing a firearm (2A), the tree of liberty needs replenishment.
You know, long before everyone else executed the guy.
2. This regime likes to post deepfakes (even president himself).
Why do you have urge to defend these pedophiles?
"Comply and you might get lucky and survive" is not a life safety strategy. I'm unsure where this idea to not resist someone who is very likely to kill you without cause (based on all of the evidence and observations to date) is coming from to be frank.
Why ICE Can Kill With Impunity - https://www.wired.com/story/why-ice-can-kill-with-impunity/ | https://archive.today/gMFRS - January 15th, 2026 ("Over the past decade, US immigration agents have shot and killed more than two dozen people. Not a single agent appears to have faced criminal charges.")
(own firearms, have taken firearm training, still aware never to trust law enforcement)
I believe evidence and what I see.
It's funny, I'm old enough to remember stuff like this: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/new-documentary-eli-n-re...
Remember that? When they shoved an MP5 in the face of a 6 year old boy to deport him? Yet relatively little uproar compared to recent events where they're actually deporting or fighting criminals.
Resisting an ICE agent is not a lawful use of lethal force. If you believe it is, you are mistaken and you are free to speak with a legal professional to update your mental model on the topic. Again, we are likely at an impasse based on your belief system (as your statements make it clear you are not speaking from a place of factual evidence based on recent incidents ie "fighting ICE agents or hitting them with a car").
The video in this example shows a citizen being held down and executed by ICE agents. The video also shows he was disarmed before the first shot was fired. Multiple angles are available for review. I am unwilling to argue facts.
Kinda deflates things a bit, don’t you think? Seems like cancer and COVID are the real killers over the last two decades.
If the Right does end up defending this, I don't see how they are compatible with the USA that I was taught to believe in my whole life.
This guy is in full support of the recent ICE murders. Moderation still hasn't banned the guy, of course.
Of course they would be suicidal to go into that situation unarmed, as well. But carrying a weapon would be double-plus-ungood and guaranteed to make them a target for unaliving, sticking out from amongst the crowd bearing rocks and sticks or even Molotov cocktails.
The right will tell you that an awful/chaotic world is one where a male ICU nurses helps a woman pushed to the ground and sprayed in the face with less lethal weapons by government jackboots wearing masks.
The right will tell you that a sane/reasonable world is one where that man is extra-judicially murdered and the woman taken into government custody.
Alex Pretti was a good man, who cared about our nation's veterans, who was murdered for defending a woman while exercising his lawful rights as an American (the Second Amendment and First Amendment). I didn't want to leave your statement slandering the murdered man un-contested as to the situation.
Alex was doing what we are taught being an American means, and he was killed by masked government thugs because of it. And bootlickers now justify murdering people because they dared exercise their first and second amendment rights and challenged masked government agents. Bootlickers that want us to live in fear of our own government. We have the right to exercise our Constitutional rights free of risk from our own government's masked thugs.
How do you know how he got there? How do you know he wasn't already there when ICE arrived? You are making assumptions in order to cast a non-evidence supported judgement.
I didn't realize the second amendment limited magazine amount.
Yes, a man tried to help up a woman who was pushed to the ground by ICE and stopped further (illegal) excessive assault/battery by ICE. That was the extent he 'imposed' himself.
The man videoed on his camera, first amendmendment protected activity that is not considered impeding ICE.
ICE are not in fact allowed to use lethal force against impediment.
His character matters when you try to paint a picture that is completely untrue and portray him as doing something he didn't and make him out to be some agitator like the government did the last person ICE murdered or the bombastic and unsupported emotionally charged language you choose to use. You calling out/policing language use while using the emotionally charged (and unsupported) language you do is classic internet cry-bully bullshit.
I understand your position is that people can hide at home from the government thugs wearing masks. I understand your position this man should die because he tried to help a woman up. I understand your position this man should die because he videoed government agents (or in your words impeded) wearing masks. I understand your position that law enforcement can murder people when they are impeded (even though legally they can't do that). I understand that you support an absolute garbage position that is based on and backed by nothing and is the opposite of American.
You somehow imply that this dude armed to the teeth, walking around with 2.extra.magazines concealed, was unaware of riots going on in the streets around him? It is to.laugh!
Continue to disparage a man murdered by our government. Continue to point out he was murdered for exercising his constitutional rights. Maybe at some point you will piece it together instead of saying it was justified because he dared exercise his rights. Probably not, you seem pretty set in your ways. But maybe, just maybe you will understand that no American is justified to be murdered by their government for exercising their constitutional rights. And that down the path you lay out lies only bondage and government oppression.
You keep trying to point to magazine capacities as if a Veterans Administration ICU nurse that cared for our veterans, whose malicious act sparking his death was helping a woman up, was somehow nafarrious/justified murdered because he was 'second amendmenting too hard'. Again goes back to why I highlighted who this man Alex was. You want to imply something but not outright say it. Like you want to hide at home instead of exercise scary constitutional rights.
"Rights" honestly don't matter in a war zone. You cannot shout "fire!" in a crowded theater. You cannot just dogpile onto law enforcement when they are taking down a criminal.
These law enforcement criminals are going out against child molesters, drug smugglers, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, sex offenders, gun runners. You and your ilk are defending these child molesters, drug smugglers, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, sex offenders, gun runners. You are literally defending thousands of child molesters, drug smugglers, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, sex offenders, gun runners when you impede and obstruct law enforcement operations.
They are trying to remove child molesters, drug smugglers, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, sex offenders, gun runners from the country. Because the pretext to remove them is the immigration status. But lest we forget that they are also child molesters, drug smugglers, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, sex offenders, gun runners? It is not their mere immigration status at issue here.
You can clearly see, in practically every video every activist releases, that there is a "task force" team going out on every raid. There is HSI, there is DEA, there is ICE and CBP, there is BATF. There are all kinds of agencies cooperating in a Task Force, not merely ICE but all together, because they have spent years building cases against the illegal criminals who are child molesters, drug smugglers, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, sex offenders, gun runners. Years collecting evidence and doing investigations against child molesters, drug smugglers, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, sex offenders, gun runners. This is the culmination of multiple years of work when a task force hits the streets to take someone down. One of these child molesters, drug smugglers, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, sex offenders, gun runners. Who should never have been admitted to the United States borders.
If someone wants to go in with a couple dozen bullets and try to "help" some pepper-sprayed chick, they're going to find out what it's like when trying to protect child molesters, drug smugglers, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, sex offenders, gun runners.
Please, by all means, continue to defend and protect child molesters, drug smugglers, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, sex offenders, gun runners for us. We admire your courage when you are on the side of child molesters, drug smugglers, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, sex offenders, gun runners. You are doing a great job of keeping them in the country, keeping them free, and keeping justice at bay for these child molesters, drug smugglers, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, sex offenders, gun runners.
Congratulations. To a really good man, a male nurse from an ICU. Who can't nurse anymore because he FAFO'd.
This meme came from a supreme court decision that found that distributing anti war flyers was illegal. Is this really the approach you want to take?
The top people in govt all the way down will completely lie about the victim and situation, despite plenty of video evidence that shows them as liars. Absolutely nothing will happen to these scumbag murderers, and another murder just like this will happen again soon.
Many people will be horrified but conservatives will continue cheering this on. This is the country we live in now.
I have the same response to people who ask me why I don’t leave the country since things are going so bad: fuck that, this is my home. I will always love this country. It is never beyond saving. We have been through worse (the civil war at the very most obvious, but there are plenty of other low points.) We can get through this. We can make it better, we can learn to love our neighbor again, we can learn to trust each other again. We can learn to avoid these tendencies towards hatred. We can’t give up.
Look at the gray agent taking the victim weapon, that had just been pepper sprayed. He was disarmed before being killed.
"Footage of the grey coat officer retrieving the gun" - https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1qlvpbr/footage_of_the...
https://xcancel.com/adamscochran/status/2015119306086900170
They had him pinned on the ground, then someone takes a gun away from him, and AFTER THAT they put him on his knees and executed him.
Additionally, there are many other videos of the agents, taking phones away from the nearby witnesses who recorded all of this.
But the most disturbing thing is that the claims made by DHS, Trump, and Noem about what happened were completely made up. They are simply inventing a story and getting it out there as quickly as possible to refute any other competing story. It does not matter to them that this is a lie. The idea is to muddy the waters.
The Whiskey Rebellion, was bearing arms.
But the video clearly indicates that they all tackled him to the ground and were wrestling him maybe 4 vs 1, before they all shot him together. I'm not quite sure how a gun can have come out of this. Maybe the guy while struggling on the ground happened to reach in the direction of someone's gun while getting curbstomped, I dunno.
What I'm most worried about is that Pam Bondi / Department of Justice refuses to investigate these or properly prosecute these cases. IE: The Renee Good case has a ton of FBI agents resigning because they've been told to focus on Good's "misbehavior" rather than the ICE Agent's aggression.
It will be up to the Minnesota police and justice system to investigate. We cannot expect anything from the DoJ/FBI here. As such, the prosecution case will be gimped, and I fear we will have nothing resembling justice in this case (or Renee Good's case either).