spat
.950 JDJ
I think the biggest, and first mistake by ICE that would have prevented Pretti's death was not arresting him for the incident a week earlier.
If he was still sitting in jail from that, he'd be alive today.
Another ICE shooting in MN.
- Thread starter WP_Plinker
- Start date
If he was still sitting in jail from that, he'd be alive today.
I keep hearing stories of how he broke a rib in that incident a week prior to him getting into the fatal fight. I'm sorry, but there's NO F'ING WAY. I've had cracked ribs. Let me tell you, he wouldn't be in any position to fight with anyone. It hurt to breathe for six months. It hurt to cough, sneeze, laugh, and poop for 9 months. It hurt to bend over for a year. No way you're going hands-on with an agent with broken ribs.
I also read where he quit his nursing job to be a full time protester. How's that possible ? Is Soros paying that well ? I seriously doubt it.
The back story on this guy doesn't add up.
None of that changes what I think of the shooting. I believe the first shot heard was a ND from the agent that disarmed him. The next couple shots by the other agent were most likely justifiable. ....BUT.... after Pretti was motionless on the ground, two agents pumped a few more rounds into him. I can't see those being justified. Those agents might have a real problem in court.
Still, it was Pretti's actions that led to the incident. Had he stayed out of the way and not involved himself, he would still be alive.
I also read where he quit his nursing job to be a full time protester. How's that possible ? Is Soros paying that well ? I seriously doubt it.
The back story on this guy doesn't add up.
None of that changes what I think of the shooting. I believe the first shot heard was a ND from the agent that disarmed him. The next couple shots by the other agent were most likely justifiable. ....BUT.... after Pretti was motionless on the ground, two agents pumped a few more rounds into him. I can't see those being justified. Those agents might have a real problem in court.
Still, it was Pretti's actions that led to the incident. Had he stayed out of the way and not involved himself, he would still be alive.
Since people here are speculating that a negligent discharge occurred, I'll play along.
Assuming there was a negligent discharge (by an officer), that does *not* justify additional shooting by the police. Firing indiscriminately is criminally reckless, particularly if subsequent shots occur in a context where force is not justified. Legal standards for use of force are event-specific. Each shot must be assessed on what actually happened in that moment.
If a negligent discharge triggered an escalation, it raises questions about training, control, and decision-making.
Being present at the protest does not make Pretti responsible for being shot. Past behavior does not validate excessive force later.
The responsibility *always* sits with whoever pulls the trigger.
Assuming there was a negligent discharge (by an officer), that does *not* justify additional shooting by the police. Firing indiscriminately is criminally reckless, particularly if subsequent shots occur in a context where force is not justified. Legal standards for use of force are event-specific. Each shot must be assessed on what actually happened in that moment.
If a negligent discharge triggered an escalation, it raises questions about training, control, and decision-making.
Being present at the protest does not make Pretti responsible for being shot. Past behavior does not validate excessive force later.
The responsibility *always* sits with whoever pulls the trigger.
Except they were not "firing indiscriminately" in their minds. They were firing at what they believed was the source of the initial shot.
Again... per their belief at the time Pretti was not under control, was still fighting with officers, and was still believed to have possession of the gun. That goes a long way toward "reasonable belief" that Pretti was still a threat.
Exactly. Except you are not doing that. You are looking at it after the fact.
No, fighting with the officers does.
Right: They weren't firing indiscriminately, they were shooting Pretti. Their judgment in doing so was poor, which undermines the reasonableness of the shoot.
Pretti was clearly restrained, evidenced by their ability to hit him and the video footage (multiple angles).
Post-shooting assessments occur after the shoot, by definition. Officers are responsible for processing the situation in real time, and their competence/culpability is evaluated based on their performance.
Not being there it makes it hard to make any conclusions.
1) he was breaking the law, not a mostly peaceful protester.
2) he entered into a physical confrontation with Federal agents who were doing the job they are paid for.
3) he continued to resist.
4) agents are putting life/limb on the line, while being attacked by leftist.
5) as I tell the wife, aim at the balls and keep shooting until they stop moving.
6) this is about the removal of people who are illegally in this country, what "right" is being used to disrupt the lawful actions of the agents?
He could have written his representatives, called, gone to their offices, used the internet, voted harder, yet he chose to die; oh well, next.
1) he was breaking the law, not a mostly peaceful protester.
2) he entered into a physical confrontation with Federal agents who were doing the job they are paid for.
3) he continued to resist.
4) agents are putting life/limb on the line, while being attacked by leftist.
5) as I tell the wife, aim at the balls and keep shooting until they stop moving.
6) this is about the removal of people who are illegally in this country, what "right" is being used to disrupt the lawful actions of the agents?
He could have written his representatives, called, gone to their offices, used the internet, voted harder, yet he chose to die; oh well, next.
I understand and agree that unchecked migration into this country cannot be allowed.
You understand the escalation of force framework, correct?
There was insufficient evidence for the agents to determine that Pretti was firing a gun. The shooting of Pretti by the agents is not justified by them scuffling with him. The undisciplined/unskilled/poorly trained agent who allegedly fired the initial shot was at fault, and every agent who subsequently fired was also at fault for failing to assess the threat level Pretti presented.
And how do you know his training, that was under ? Oboma/biden? Trump?
They did know he had a gun.
They did hear a gun shot during the scrum and instantly responded with, to them per training to end the conflict.
This person has no responsibility in his own death?
Like I said, he put himself in the situation and got one of the many out comes.
They did know he had a gun.
They did hear a gun shot during the scrum and instantly responded with, to them per training to end the conflict.
This person has no responsibility in his own death?
Like I said, he put himself in the situation and got one of the many out comes.
Escalation of force framework is evidence-based. Pretti did not fire the shot and was not holding a gun.
The agents acting on assumption and then using lethal force against Pretti is reckless, criminal negligence. Pretti's actions in the moment did not warrant his execution. The agents have legal responsibility for Pretti's death.
MothMan
.338 Win Mag
Don LeMon arrested!
www.foxnews.com
Don Lemon taken into custody for his involvement in livestreaming protest at Minnesota church
Former CNN host Don Lemon was taken into custody for his role in the left-wing protest that took over a Minnesota church, his attorney said in a statement.
www.foxnews.com
C3D
.338 Win Mag
More info here:
nypost.com
Ex-CNN host Don Lemon arrested for Minnesota church invasion while in Los Angeles covering Grammys
Disgraced ex-CNN anchor Don Lemon was arrested late Thursday, weeks after he joined anti-ICE protesters as they interrupted a Sunday service while storming a Minneapolis church.
nypost.com
You would what, waited to see the bullet leave the weapon?
Why was it/he/she even there? His choice and he died for not following the rules for redressing government.
Some one breaks into your house you what, shoot them (unarmed) because you fear the potential, or you talk to them, or just go about your business.
Get real, the guy is dead from his actions/ decisions completely his fault. Even his right to be armed was his to make, it got him killed. Had he not be armed or not fought he would be alive today.
Trying to be relevant.More info here:
Ex-CNN host Don Lemon arrested for Minnesota church invasion while in Los Angeles covering Grammys
Disgraced ex-CNN anchor Don Lemon was arrested late Thursday, weeks after he joined anti-ICE protesters as they interrupted a Sunday service while storming a Minneapolis church.
Pretti was disarmed and had no weapon.
Asking why Pretti was there is pointless. He is dead and cannot answer.
Your breaking and entering scenario is irrelevant to this discussion, but based on the facts you present, I would draw down and hold fire until presented with threat of death or grievous injury.
Your last 3 sentences are what is called "self-check" in basketball. I don't need to address them, you dribbled off your foot out of bounds.
At my house you would be shot. Your way they shoot you.
Yes, self check, he didn't and paid the price.
You conveniently forget the fog of war, run or fight, humans make mistakes, deadly mistakes all the time.
He being disarmed - who knew before the first shot? Only the guy holding the weapon?
Asking why - with that reasoning we never need to speak of any of the dead people and any further discussion is worthless.
Yes, self check, he didn't and paid the price.
You conveniently forget the fog of war, run or fight, humans make mistakes, deadly mistakes all the time.
He being disarmed - who knew before the first shot? Only the guy holding the weapon?
Asking why - with that reasoning we never need to speak of any of the dead people and any further discussion is worthless.
Bigfoot
.475 A&M Magnum
Tisto is speaking the truth, I've been there and done that myself.
When I heard that aspect of it, I immediately thought no fucking way.
Ask me how I know, it's no fun, and no way did that asshole have a broken/or even bruised, rib.
Plus, when shit happens, it's unlikely that just one particular rib gets damaged.
(I raced the local motocross circuit for 12 years and grew up on dirt bikes.) I know my shit.
The propaganda and the stupid is getting way out of control. And the useful idiots eat the propaganda up as fact, like the retards they are. Those stupid fucking fucks make things worse for everybody.
spat
.950 JDJ
Pretti was there to obstruct federal law enforcement, but that's not why he was killed.
He was being arrested for that obstruction when he decided to resist that arrest, but that's not why he was killed either.
He brought a gun with him to commit that felony obstruction, but even *that* wasn't why he was killed.
He was killed because multiple law enforcement officers who were trying to arrest him believed he presented a danger of serious injury or death.
Whether he was disarmed or not is irrelevant. What *is* relevant is whether the officers who fired knew he had been disarmed. It seems unlikely that they did.
So, when determining whether their shots were justified the only question that matters is "would a reasonable officer who knew what they knew believe there was a significant danger of serious injury or death ?"
So, lets list what those officers likely knew:
This guy was there to antagonize and obstruct them. He'd been doing it for weeks. This seems pretty clear.
He was violently resisting their arrest. Also doesn't seem to be disputable.
He was armed. They knew this because one of the officers he was fighting yelled "gun".
Then they heard a gun shot.
Seems to me like a reasonable officer would conclude the danger was pretty real given those facts.
No need for debate at all.
Lay it out clearly.
Robin
.577 Tyrannosaur.
.........and, he wasn't executed! Geeez! You think that kind of empty rhetoric enhances you already flimsy position.
Robin
Robin
spat
.950 JDJ
Read my post #257 above, I think I was pretty clear.
So, let's see.
You start out making irrelevant statements. You then proceed to ascribe intentions and thought processes to third parties, which is simple speculation.
You overstate the significance of your contribution to this conversation.
When he was executed, he was not armed. The judgment demonstrated by the officers was poor, based on the objective facts of the case.
Furthermore, I was replying to "Rocpo" and inviting him to set the record straight concerning the law and UoF procedure.
spat
.950 JDJ
What statement did I make that you question ?
And it's irrelevant that he was disarmed unless the officers who fired *knew* he had been disarmed.
Use of force law in every jurisdiction in the US is based on what the user of that force reasonably believed. Whether they were correct is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is whether their belief was reasonable.
So, unless you can explain why it *wasn't* reasonable for the officers who fired to believe he was an immediate threat, then it was justified.
Just like it wouldn't matter if the gun hadn't been loaded, because the officers didn't know that, and it would have been reasonable for them to assume it was.
spat
.950 JDJ
I think he was clear that he didn't care to engage with you on this topic. I can understand why.
I think it's clear you're caping for your boy.
spat
.950 JDJ
"Caping for my boy" ?
Way to illustrate *why* he doesn't want to engage.
Do you have any actual logical or factual arguments to make to support your position, or are we just down to Ad Hominem, Ad Nauseum ?
Please do identify the ad hominem.
The law and UoF procedure are matters of fact. If I've misrepresented or misstated them, as Rocpo has claimed, then the invitation stands for him to set the record straight. Your running interference is a convenient distraction.
Bigfoot
.475 A&M Magnum
It's *capping*, not caping.
I just thought I'd mention it.
I just thought I'd mention it.
Swing and a miss.
Urban Dictionary: Cape
Cape: When someone is protecting, covering for or being a “hero” for another person.
cape.urbanup.com