Game. Set. Match.
FAFO.
FAFO.
Minneapolis getting Hot? [Staff Warning. Take Note]
716,620 Views |
8247 Replies |
Last: 9 days ago by will25u
ABATTBQ11 said:Who?mikejones! said:
He was "disarmed" approx .1 sec before being shot. Theres no the agents would have known that so quickly in the chaos.
That talking point makes it look like youre reaching at straws to validate you're opinion
Just my 2 cents
The gun was pulled from his holster, not his hand. It would be one thing if he were dropping it as they fired, but it's something else entirely that he never even held it.
And? I didn't say it was pulled from his hand
ABATTBQ11 said:
Go back and watch the videos. He's across the street when there is an altercation, not interfering. The aggressor is the ICE agent who shoves a woman to the ground for shouting at him, which is protected by the first amendment. You don't get to lay hands on people for words, and neither do they. Does it suck for those agents? Yeah, but that's the world we live in and the job they signed up and get paid for.
troll somewhere else your delusion is beyond repair
"We're going to turn this red Prius into a soup kitchen!"
Ryan the Temp said:Quote:
they just killed him for fun, or because he kicked out their tail light a few days earlier
This is a weird theory that is being floated by some people because Tom Homan allegedly bragged about tracking protesters.
They would be idiots not to track the violent and problematic ones (Like Pretti). We are dealing with psychos, many of which belong in funny farm. On top of all that, they literally view these agents as Nazis. Kamala and many more of your leaders have been calling them this since Trump's first term.
Not to mention the many actual attacks on ICE and BP just in the last year alone, which Don lemon and Jthe ladies from The View probably didn't relay to you and your democratic brethren, so I wouldn't expect you to know that many federal agents have been attacked by violent leftists.
ABATTBQ11 said:RED AG 98 said:ABATTBQ11 said:Prosperdick said:BadMoonRisin said:
Alternate angle for all the low iq clowns calling it AI
Much longer clip. Altercation happens around 16:50.
This man was NOT a protestor.
Funny I haven't seen any of our lib friends comment on this video. Pretti, so peaceful, so tolerant.
Honestly, I don't particularly care. They should have arrested him then if they were going to. What they ultimately did is not justified by anything that came days before.
If you care at all to hear a legal perspective, these few minutes are worth your time.The sound bytes around the Pretti story evade both context and personal responsibility.
— Walter Hudson (@WalterHudson) January 28, 2026
No one has the right to charge into a law enforcement operation and confront officers. It's a crime. Carrying a gun while doing so makes it more volatile. pic.twitter.com/79RVZ3QTrG
Hard to be charging into a law enforcement operation when it's across the street.
He was in the middle of the street directing traffic inside an area if operation, broke the law here. He got between law enforcement and the woman, interfering with law enforcement so he again broke the law. Resisting the law enforcement officer again he broke the law. What part of interfering with law enforcement do you not understand.
We really need to rewrite our laws concerning libel and slander.
1981 Monte Carlo said:Ryan the Temp said:Quote:
they just killed him for fun, or because he kicked out their tail light a few days earlier
This is a weird theory that is being floated by some people because Tom Homan allegedly bragged about tracking protesters.
They would be idiots not to track the violent and problematic ones (Like Pretti). We are dealing with psychos, many of which belong in funny farm. On top of all that, they literally view these agents as Nazis. Kamala and many more of your leaders have been calling them this since Trump's first term.
Not to mention the many actual attacks on ICE and BP just in the last year alone, which Don lemon and Jthe ladies from The View probably didn't relay to you and your democratic brethren, so I wouldn't expect you to know that many federal agents have been attacked by violent leftists.
You've probably seen Don Lemon and The View more times than I have (which is zero), but don't let that stop you from making unsubstantiated judgments about me.
1981 Monte Carlo said:ABATTBQ11 said:American Hardwood said:
There is a video somewhere in slo mo that shows the agent with the pistol and it appears he does not have a finger on the trigger and there is a frame that appears to be the slide in the rear position indicating a shot was fired. It's grainy film so there is room to question it, but it does appear there was an accidental discharge
A single frame in grainy video that might show something is not evidence of it. It would be more trying if there was a middle flash and movement within many frames. As it is, an accidental discharge has only been theorized after the fact and not mentioned in CBP's preliminary reports based on officer statements and bodycam footage, unless everyone who has reported on them has omitted it. You would think that an a) an agent who had an accidental discharge from a weapon he had just confiscated would be aware of a gun going off in his hand and b) such an important and unmistakable event would make its way into his official accounts and official reports.
So what is your take on this? Gross incompetence...or they just killed him for fun, or because he kicked out their tail light a few days earlier?
Genuinely trying to understand your position. You don't even seem to consider the possibility that this may have just been an unfortunate but honest and understandable mistake, amidst a violent chaotic interaction.
Gross incompetence and overreaction. It would be an incredible coincidence if these were the same agents as days before, though not it of the question, so I don't believe that played any part.
It may be an honest mistake, but it's not an understandable one. Until there's anything definitive, I don't buy into the theory of accidental discharge. Maybe they fired because there was an agent yelling, "Gun!" but, IMO, it's up to you to verify a threat before drawing a weapon and shooting someone. Cops on here have posted before that, "I thought he had a gun in his hand," is not enough to justify a shooting in the context that they are held to a high standard, except when it happens, it is, in fact, enough. IMO, "I heard someone say, 'Gun!' so I started blastin'," is not the minimum standard LE should be held to.
ABATTBQ11 said:1981 Monte Carlo said:ABATTBQ11 said:American Hardwood said:
There is a video somewhere in slo mo that shows the agent with the pistol and it appears he does not have a finger on the trigger and there is a frame that appears to be the slide in the rear position indicating a shot was fired. It's grainy film so there is room to question it, but it does appear there was an accidental discharge
A single frame in grainy video that might show something is not evidence of it. It would be more trying if there was a middle flash and movement within many frames. As it is, an accidental discharge has only been theorized after the fact and not mentioned in CBP's preliminary reports based on officer statements and bodycam footage, unless everyone who has reported on them has omitted it. You would think that an a) an agent who had an accidental discharge from a weapon he had just confiscated would be aware of a gun going off in his hand and b) such an important and unmistakable event would make its way into his official accounts and official reports.
So what is your take on this? Gross incompetence...or they just killed him for fun, or because he kicked out their tail light a few days earlier?
Genuinely trying to understand your position. You don't even seem to consider the possibility that this may have just been an unfortunate but honest and understandable mistake, amidst a violent chaotic interaction.
Gross incompetence and overreaction. It would be an incredible coincidence if these were the same agents as days before, though not it of the question, so I don't believe that played any part.
It may be an honest mistake, but it's not an understandable one. Until there's anything definitive, I don't buy into the theory of accidental discharge. Maybe they fired because there was an agent yelling, "Gun!" but, IMO, it's up to you to verify a threat before drawing a weapon and shooting someone. Cops on here have posted before that, "I thought he had a gun in his hand," is not enough to justify a shooting in the context that they are held to a high standard, except when it happens, it is, in fact, enough. IMO, "I heard someone say, 'Gun!' so I started blastin'," is not the minimum standard LE should be held to.
According to you.
It was a good shoot, dude is worm food, lets move on.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. At this point you have to be trolling. There is no other explanation.
Quote:
It may be an honest mistake, but it's not an understandable one.
I have a hard time reconciling this.
I tend to think not...but it very well possibly could have been a mistake from an over-reaction.
But not understandable? They have an armed agitator fighting them. How is it not, at the very least, understandable?
ABATTBQ11 said:1981 Monte Carlo said:ABATTBQ11 said:American Hardwood said:
There is a video somewhere in slo mo that shows the agent with the pistol and it appears he does not have a finger on the trigger and there is a frame that appears to be the slide in the rear position indicating a shot was fired. It's grainy film so there is room to question it, but it does appear there was an accidental discharge
A single frame in grainy video that might show something is not evidence of it. It would be more trying if there was a middle flash and movement within many frames. As it is, an accidental discharge has only been theorized after the fact and not mentioned in CBP's preliminary reports based on officer statements and bodycam footage, unless everyone who has reported on them has omitted it. You would think that an a) an agent who had an accidental discharge from a weapon he had just confiscated would be aware of a gun going off in his hand and b) such an important and unmistakable event would make its way into his official accounts and official reports.
So what is your take on this? Gross incompetence...or they just killed him for fun, or because he kicked out their tail light a few days earlier?
Genuinely trying to understand your position. You don't even seem to consider the possibility that this may have just been an unfortunate but honest and understandable mistake, amidst a violent chaotic interaction.
Gross incompetence and overreaction. It would be an incredible coincidence if these were the same agents as days before, though not it of the question, so I don't believe that played any part.
It may be an honest mistake, but it's not an understandable one. Until there's anything definitive, I don't buy into the theory of accidental discharge. Maybe they fired because there was an agent yelling, "Gun!" but, IMO, it's up to you to verify a threat before drawing a weapon and shooting someone. Cops on here have posted before that, "I thought he had a gun in his hand," is not enough to justify a shooting in the context that they are held to a high standard, except when it happens, it is, in fact, enough. IMO, "I heard someone say, 'Gun!' so I started blastin'," is not the minimum standard LE should be held to.
If one of the cops there said gun, that became shared knowledge to all the cops there. They don't specifically have to see the gun but they know he's armed. If you'd read the shipwreckedcrew analysis, you'd know that.
He was a DOJ criminal attorney for almost 20 years and defense attorney for over 10 since then. I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about.
ABATTBQ11 said:1981 Monte Carlo said:ABATTBQ11 said:American Hardwood said:
There is a video somewhere in slo mo that shows the agent with the pistol and it appears he does not have a finger on the trigger and there is a frame that appears to be the slide in the rear position indicating a shot was fired. It's grainy film so there is room to question it, but it does appear there was an accidental discharge
A single frame in grainy video that might show something is not evidence of it. It would be more trying if there was a middle flash and movement within many frames. As it is, an accidental discharge has only been theorized after the fact and not mentioned in CBP's preliminary reports based on officer statements and bodycam footage, unless everyone who has reported on them has omitted it. You would think that an a) an agent who had an accidental discharge from a weapon he had just confiscated would be aware of a gun going off in his hand and b) such an important and unmistakable event would make its way into his official accounts and official reports.
So what is your take on this? Gross incompetence...or they just killed him for fun, or because he kicked out their tail light a few days earlier?
Genuinely trying to understand your position. You don't even seem to consider the possibility that this may have just been an unfortunate but honest and understandable mistake, amidst a violent chaotic interaction.
Gross incompetence and overreaction. It would be an incredible coincidence if these were the same agents as days before, though not it of the question, so I don't believe that played any part.
It may be an honest mistake, but it's not an understandable one. Until there's anything definitive, I don't buy into the theory of accidental discharge. Maybe they fired because there was an agent yelling, "Gun!" but, IMO, it's up to you to verify a threat before drawing a weapon and shooting someone. Cops on here have posted before that, "I thought he had a gun in his hand," is not enough to justify a shooting in the context that they are held to a high standard, except when it happens, it is, in fact, enough. IMO, "I heard someone say, 'Gun!' so I started blastin'," is not the minimum standard LE should be held to.
What if the gun was removed, and half a second after they were unaware, and saw him continuing to fight and squirm and try to get up and his hand runs up to their holster, which they (officers on his right side) think still holds a gun? I just think some of you may not be truly open minded or completely rational on this issue, possibly bc of biases?
ABATTBQ11 said:1981 Monte Carlo said:ABATTBQ11 said:American Hardwood said:
There is a video somewhere in slo mo that shows the agent with the pistol and it appears he does not have a finger on the trigger and there is a frame that appears to be the slide in the rear position indicating a shot was fired. It's grainy film so there is room to question it, but it does appear there was an accidental discharge
A single frame in grainy video that might show something is not evidence of it. It would be more trying if there was a middle flash and movement within many frames. As it is, an accidental discharge has only been theorized after the fact and not mentioned in CBP's preliminary reports based on officer statements and bodycam footage, unless everyone who has reported on them has omitted it. You would think that an a) an agent who had an accidental discharge from a weapon he had just confiscated would be aware of a gun going off in his hand and b) such an important and unmistakable event would make its way into his official accounts and official reports.
So what is your take on this? Gross incompetence...or they just killed him for fun, or because he kicked out their tail light a few days earlier?
Genuinely trying to understand your position. You don't even seem to consider the possibility that this may have just been an unfortunate but honest and understandable mistake, amidst a violent chaotic interaction.
Gross incompetence and overreaction. It would be an incredible coincidence if these were the same agents as days before, though not it of the question, so I don't believe that played any part.
It may be an honest mistake, but it's not an understandable one. Until there's anything definitive, I don't buy into the theory of accidental discharge. Maybe they fired because there was an agent yelling, "Gun!" but, IMO, it's up to you to verify a threat before drawing a weapon and shooting someone. Cops on here have posted before that, "I thought he had a gun in his hand," is not enough to justify a shooting in the context that they are held to a high standard, except when it happens, it is, in fact, enough. IMO, "I heard someone say, 'Gun!' so I started blastin'," is not the minimum standard LE should be held to.
See my previous discussion about root causes.
But to indulge your desire to analyze this split second of time event, imagine this. You are one of 4+ agents trying to wrestle an uncooperative and aggressive person to the ground. In the space of about 1 second, you hear "Gun!", see an empty holster in the small of the guy's back, and his arm (view of hand obscured) is moving towards another agent. Is it a good shoot if you open fire, believing that the hand you cannot see has a gun in it and trusting the call of the other agent who said "Gun!"?
We can look back and decide what we think those agents should have done for weeks and months while carefully studying slow motion videos, but the only call that matters is whether the agents that opened fire were justified in making that split second decision of thinking the guy on the ground fighting them was a deadly threat to one or more of them. In the bright lights of post-action hindsight, no, it was an unnecessary shoot. But in that 1 second or so they had to make their decision, can you conclusively say that they were not justified in believing he was a deadly threat given only what they could see or hear in the midst of the chaos? I can't.
Teslag said:Quote:
He was already stepping onto the opposite sidewalk when the woman was pushed.
Again, what happens with the woman has no bearing on Pretti. He had no business, obligation, or justification for coming to her assistance. At that point it's solely between her and the agents. The second he intervenes, for whatever reason, he is interfering and instigating.
And breaking the law.
We really need to rewrite our laws concerning libel and slander.
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
Joined:
May 6, 2014
Posts:
32,416
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
richardag said:Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:
This isn't a suburb like Maplegrove folks, this is downtown Minneapolis, Local PD and State Troopers, Frey's little talk with Holman must have got him in line.NEW: Anti-ICE activists being herded on to buses with bars on windows. This is happening in front of the Graduate Hotel in Minneapolis. @TPUSA|@choeshow pic.twitter.com/VET24H0jNC
— FRONTLINES TPUSA (@FrontlinesTPUSA) January 29, 2026
But shifty told us it was all a Trump TACO.
Typical shifty full of shift
We joke, but isn't it ironic after a couple of phone calls and sending Homan in, the actual Mogadishota Police are now doing their job? Gee, that might have saved a couple of lives and made the whole operation more efficient. Hell, ICE might already be leaving the city if this was the coordination all along. But there isn't any fraud going on now, swept under the dirty Somalian carpet in the dirty Somalian Mall.
Was Pretti arrested after this incident?
After he kicked the taillight off the SUV? No. As pointed out earlier, ICE was apparently finishing up their apprehension and it's not in their purview to be arresting agitators and hauling them in. I think they got out in frustration and wanted to but were called off to just get the hell out of there.
Person Not Capable of Pregnancy
1981 Monte Carlo said:ABATTBQ11 said:1981 Monte Carlo said:ABATTBQ11 said:American Hardwood said:
There is a video somewhere in slo mo that shows the agent with the pistol and it appears he does not have a finger on the trigger and there is a frame that appears to be the slide in the rear position indicating a shot was fired. It's grainy film so there is room to question it, but it does appear there was an accidental discharge
A single frame in grainy video that might show something is not evidence of it. It would be more trying if there was a middle flash and movement within many frames. As it is, an accidental discharge has only been theorized after the fact and not mentioned in CBP's preliminary reports based on officer statements and bodycam footage, unless everyone who has reported on them has omitted it. You would think that an a) an agent who had an accidental discharge from a weapon he had just confiscated would be aware of a gun going off in his hand and b) such an important and unmistakable event would make its way into his official accounts and official reports.
So what is your take on this? Gross incompetence...or they just killed him for fun, or because he kicked out their tail light a few days earlier?
Genuinely trying to understand your position. You don't even seem to consider the possibility that this may have just been an unfortunate but honest and understandable mistake, amidst a violent chaotic interaction.
Gross incompetence and overreaction. It would be an incredible coincidence if these were the same agents as days before, though not it of the question, so I don't believe that played any part.
It may be an honest mistake, but it's not an understandable one. Until there's anything definitive, I don't buy into the theory of accidental discharge. Maybe they fired because there was an agent yelling, "Gun!" but, IMO, it's up to you to verify a threat before drawing a weapon and shooting someone. Cops on here have posted before that, "I thought he had a gun in his hand," is not enough to justify a shooting in the context that they are held to a high standard, except when it happens, it is, in fact, enough. IMO, "I heard someone say, 'Gun!' so I started blastin'," is not the minimum standard LE should be held to.
What if the gun was removed, and half a second after they were unaware, and saw him continuing to fight and squirm and try to get up and his hand runs up to their holster, which they (officers on his right side) think still holds a gun? I just think some of you may not be truly open minded or completely rational on this issue, possibly bc of biases?
We don't know if the 2 agents that fired shots either saw the gun in the holster, saw an empty holster, or didn't see the gun OR the holster at all. The shots weren't fired until after "Gun!". If it was me, I probably wouldn't have fired. But I don't blame them for firing either. That's a split second decision and when the next thing you hear could be a bad guy's gun putting a bullet into you well it tends to make your decision space a little different than for us sitting here at our computers.
I put this in the "unfortunate" end result category, but not anywhere near incompetence. The dude made mistake after mistake to put these agents in this situation - root cause blame goes to the Pretti dead guy IMO.
ETA: I'm assuming there was a IWB holster - although there might not have been. Someone would need to take a closer look at the video to verify. Somewhat irrelevant to this discussion though.
richardag said:Teslag said:Quote:
He was already stepping onto the opposite sidewalk when the woman was pushed.
Again, what happens with the woman has no bearing on Pretti. He had no business, obligation, or justification for coming to her assistance. At that point it's solely between her and the agents. The second he intervenes, for whatever reason, he is interfering and instigating.
And breaking the law.
Going to quibble a bit on this because like so many rules, not hard and fast.
Pretti can intervene IF the officer's interaction with her is unlawful. But since he knows that's a federal agent, he's taking the risk of being wrong and escalating the situation.
javajaws said:1981 Monte Carlo said:ABATTBQ11 said:1981 Monte Carlo said:ABATTBQ11 said:American Hardwood said:
There is a video somewhere in slo mo that shows the agent with the pistol and it appears he does not have a finger on the trigger and there is a frame that appears to be the slide in the rear position indicating a shot was fired. It's grainy film so there is room to question it, but it does appear there was an accidental discharge
A single frame in grainy video that might show something is not evidence of it. It would be more trying if there was a middle flash and movement within many frames. As it is, an accidental discharge has only been theorized after the fact and not mentioned in CBP's preliminary reports based on officer statements and bodycam footage, unless everyone who has reported on them has omitted it. You would think that an a) an agent who had an accidental discharge from a weapon he had just confiscated would be aware of a gun going off in his hand and b) such an important and unmistakable event would make its way into his official accounts and official reports.
So what is your take on this? Gross incompetence...or they just killed him for fun, or because he kicked out their tail light a few days earlier?
Genuinely trying to understand your position. You don't even seem to consider the possibility that this may have just been an unfortunate but honest and understandable mistake, amidst a violent chaotic interaction.
Gross incompetence and overreaction. It would be an incredible coincidence if these were the same agents as days before, though not it of the question, so I don't believe that played any part.
It may be an honest mistake, but it's not an understandable one. Until there's anything definitive, I don't buy into the theory of accidental discharge. Maybe they fired because there was an agent yelling, "Gun!" but, IMO, it's up to you to verify a threat before drawing a weapon and shooting someone. Cops on here have posted before that, "I thought he had a gun in his hand," is not enough to justify a shooting in the context that they are held to a high standard, except when it happens, it is, in fact, enough. IMO, "I heard someone say, 'Gun!' so I started blastin'," is not the minimum standard LE should be held to.
What if the gun was removed, and half a second after they were unaware, and saw him continuing to fight and squirm and try to get up and his hand runs up to their holster, which they (officers on his right side) think still holds a gun? I just think some of you may not be truly open minded or completely rational on this issue, possibly bc of biases?
We don't know if the 2 agents that fired shots either saw the gun in the holster, saw an empty holster, or didn't see the gun OR the holster at all. The shots weren't fired until after "Gun!". If it was me, I probably wouldn't have fired. But I don't blame them for firing either. That's a split second decision and when the next thing you hear could be a bad guy's gun putting a bullet into you well it tends to make your decision space a little different than for us sitting here at our computers.
I put this in the "unfortunate" end result category, but not anywhere near incompetence. The dude made mistake after mistake to put these agents in this situation - root cause blame goes to the Pretti dead guy IMO.
ETA: I'm assuming there was a IWB holster - although there might not have been. Someone would need to take a closer look at the video to verify. Somewhat irrelevant to this discussion though.
In the video from the previous incident where he kicked out the taillight, he was carrying IWB at the small of his back on the right side.
ABATTBQ11 said:1981 Monte Carlo said:ABATTBQ11 said:American Hardwood said:
There is a video somewhere in slo mo that shows the agent with the pistol and it appears he does not have a finger on the trigger and there is a frame that appears to be the slide in the rear position indicating a shot was fired. It's grainy film so there is room to question it, but it does appear there was an accidental discharge
A single frame in grainy video that might show something is not evidence of it. It would be more trying if there was a middle flash and movement within many frames. As it is, an accidental discharge has only been theorized after the fact and not mentioned in CBP's preliminary reports based on officer statements and bodycam footage, unless everyone who has reported on them has omitted it. You would think that an a) an agent who had an accidental discharge from a weapon he had just confiscated would be aware of a gun going off in his hand and b) such an important and unmistakable event would make its way into his official accounts and official reports.
So what is your take on this? Gross incompetence...or they just killed him for fun, or because he kicked out their tail light a few days earlier?
Genuinely trying to understand your position. You don't even seem to consider the possibility that this may have just been an unfortunate but honest and understandable mistake, amidst a violent chaotic interaction.
Gross incompetence and overreaction. It would be an incredible coincidence if these were the same agents as days before, though not it of the question, so I don't believe that played any part.
It may be an honest mistake, but it's not an understandable one. Until there's anything definitive, I don't buy into the theory of accidental discharge. Maybe they fired because there was an agent yelling, "Gun!" but, IMO, it's up to you to verify a threat before drawing a weapon and shooting someone. Cops on here have posted before that, "I thought he had a gun in his hand," is not enough to justify a shooting in the context that they are held to a high standard, except when it happens, it is, in fact, enough. IMO, "I heard someone say, 'Gun!' so I started blastin'," is not the minimum standard LE should be held to.
Lets say the ICE agents were the best trained federal law enforcement agents in the world. For argument's sake, lets say they've received training on how to deal with "protestors" and angry mobs, and how to deal with people who are egregiously breaking the law and intentionally interfering with legal law enforcement operations.
Given this scenario, how often do you think an angry man with a visible handgun in his holster walks away after initiating contact and violently resisting arrest with half a dozen agents?
Phatbob said:
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. At this point you have to be trolling. There is no other explanation.
He is probably trolling, but could be he is someone that thinks the government should protect us from our own stupid choices. BTW, I don't think he has acknowledged the fact Pretti was committing a felony when he was shot
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
Joined:
May 6, 2014
Posts:
32,416
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
richardag said:ABATTBQ11 said:RED AG 98 said:ABATTBQ11 said:Prosperdick said:BadMoonRisin said:
Alternate angle for all the low iq clowns calling it AI
Much longer clip. Altercation happens around 16:50.
This man was NOT a protestor.
Funny I haven't seen any of our lib friends comment on this video. Pretti, so peaceful, so tolerant.
Honestly, I don't particularly care. They should have arrested him then if they were going to. What they ultimately did is not justified by anything that came days before.
If you care at all to hear a legal perspective, these few minutes are worth your time.The sound bytes around the Pretti story evade both context and personal responsibility.
— Walter Hudson (@WalterHudson) January 28, 2026
No one has the right to charge into a law enforcement operation and confront officers. It's a crime. Carrying a gun while doing so makes it more volatile. pic.twitter.com/79RVZ3QTrG
Hard to be charging into a law enforcement operation when it's across the street.
He was in the middle of the street directing traffic inside an area if operation, broke the law here. He got between law enforcement and the woman, interfering with law enforcement so he again broke the law. Resisting the law enforcement officer again he broke the law. What part of interfering with law enforcement do you not understand.
To add, I believe the still photos of him going nose to nose with an agent ON THE SIDEWALK was before he was in the street directing traffic or signaling to others he was supporting. So at that point, he had made himself known to the officers, as did lady walking across the street. In totality of the situation, officers have already had contact with him and now he is inserting himself into the middle of a scrum. They are identifying potential threats and being alert to them. Which is their job in trying to keep the scene under control.
Person Not Capable of Pregnancy
I understand that is your opinion but the current legal standard very thoroughly established by case law including Supreme Court decisions is the reasonable action standard. It applies to each person and their action as as individuals based on what is established that they knew, saw, thought, believed at the moment the incident occurred. The standard isn't what satisfies any third party, it is what is a reasonable action by a hypothetical officer given the circumstances and knowledge of the individual officer.
The rules are very much balanced to protect the public AND the officer from eachother as much as possible. The officer isn't expected to take potentially suicidal risks to avoid serous harm to self or others, but they are required to have made a reasonable assessment and taken reasonable actions based on what they understood or perceived to be the circumstances in the moment.
This means if you willingly do things that could result in a officer fearing serious harm or death, you are voluntarily taking a dire risk that their perceptions of events makes a deadly force response seem like the reasonable way to stop a perceived deadly threat in the moment. This is why assaulting officers is a serious offense as a deterrent.
The rules are very much balanced to protect the public AND the officer from eachother as much as possible. The officer isn't expected to take potentially suicidal risks to avoid serous harm to self or others, but they are required to have made a reasonable assessment and taken reasonable actions based on what they understood or perceived to be the circumstances in the moment.
This means if you willingly do things that could result in a officer fearing serious harm or death, you are voluntarily taking a dire risk that their perceptions of events makes a deadly force response seem like the reasonable way to stop a perceived deadly threat in the moment. This is why assaulting officers is a serious offense as a deterrent.
Ryan the Temp said:1981 Monte Carlo said:Ryan the Temp said:Quote:
they just killed him for fun, or because he kicked out their tail light a few days earlier
This is a weird theory that is being floated by some people because Tom Homan allegedly bragged about tracking protesters.
They would be idiots not to track the violent and problematic ones (Like Pretti). We are dealing with psychos, many of which belong in funny farm. On top of all that, they literally view these agents as Nazis. Kamala and many more of your leaders have been calling them this since Trump's first term.
Not to mention the many actual attacks on ICE and BP just in the last year alone, which Don lemon and Jthe ladies from The View probably didn't relay to you and your democratic brethren, so I wouldn't expect you to know that many federal agents have been attacked by violent leftists.You've probably seen Don Lemon and The View more times than I have (which is zero),but don't let that stop you from making unsubstantiated judgments about me.
Agreed. I just disagree with your opinion on the legality of this shooting but admit IANAL. Better legal minds seem to indicate a tragic dearth that was a legal shooting. My opinion may be wrong and I hope for an honest investigation.
We really need to rewrite our laws concerning libel and slander.
Martha just depantsed Hakeem Jeffries (rule #1 denied) over the ICE funding and shutdown. He knew all the lies about Pretti Boy Dead but evidently had no clue 65 protestors were arrested from a NY Hilton, and though not his particular different he is the minority leader in the House and from a NY district.
He looked stupid, moreso than he naturally does.
Praise be they shutdown the government again. Their rhetoric is making them look worse and worse.
He looked stupid, moreso than he naturally does.
Praise be they shutdown the government again. Their rhetoric is making them look worse and worse.
policywonk98 said:
Posted most of this message in another thread will post it here because I'm flabbergasted there are people arguing that citizens have a right to protest law enforcement operations at the point of operation.
If Pretti is at the bottom of the steps of the Capitol building with a protest sign asking Congress to change immigration laws he would still be alive today. If he was outside of this local congressman's office, he would still be alive today. If he was on any random corner bringing the issue to the attention of passersby he would still be alive today.
That is my starting and ending point on all debates on this subject. The shoot could be good or bad. I absolutely want to know that all law enforcement agencies including ICE are doing their level best to mitigate bad shoots even for those they are trying to apprehend I have no interest in seeing loss of life unless that life is truly threatening the lives of those apprehending them.
But in the case of Pretti and all would be protestors, good and bad shoot is secondary. This would be like acting like an entire war should be ended because an imbedded reporter is killed in the field of battle. If you voluntarily choose to go into a field of battle when you are neither the soldier or the enemy combatant, you take on certain risks.
This man chose to show up to an active law enforcement operation. I don't have to ask any of my friends who have been in law enforcement because I've heard enough of their stories over the years of what it's like when they are part of an operation to apprehend a suspect. If you insert some group of protesting people wanting to block or thwart your operation, that's not a good situation and the voluntary action of a protestor knowingly try to enter into an operation area takes 100% of the responsibility. Some free climber just scaled a skyscraper live on tv the other day. If that guy fell to his death that's not the building fault or the film crews fault. Nobody made him free climb that skyscraper.
It is absolutely absurd to me that anyone is defending people's right to organize a law enforcement COUNTER-Operation as a form of protest. That is not what the constitution is protecting. It's not. And to the extent that a state and municipality is withholding cooperating local Leo's for operations, that needs to be investigated to the extent there are long standing cooperative agreements and federal support to localities for the express purpose of cooperative ops in order to prevent these exact scenarios from happening.
Good shoots or bad shoots. Every operational shoot should be investigated and our law enforcement should do everything in their power to control the operational zone they are creating. Public safety has taken a back seat here and it largely rests on the shoulders of the governor of MN and mayor of Minneapolis, who are both trying to score political points with those that want no immigrations laws to exist much less enforcement of those laws.
This is a great post because it touches on the First Amendment argument leftists are making that he "had a right to protest" which as you adeptly pointed out what he was doing was not protesting but interfering which is breaking federal law and not protected freedom of assembly.
Further, on the 2A arguments that the leftists are throwing around, his 2A protections ended when he interfered and thus committed a federal crime while carrying a gun. And its the Jurassic Park Ian Malcolm statement on his decision to carry: while he was too busy thinking he could carry a gun, he didn't stop to think if he should carry a gun knowing he was going to disrupt and agitate.
Leftists are emotional children arguing about this from a child's POV based on instant reaction from video and hindsight.
Quote:
Leftists are emotional children arguing about this from a child's POV based on instant reaction from video and hindsight.
And getting all stompy feet when corrected.
Yall done made Walz so mad he vows to never run for office again, but that his grass roots protesting stood in the face of the Trump admin and Trump backed down.
Libs live in a fantasy land of delusion. Well known, but the depths remain impressive.
Libs live in a fantasy land of delusion. Well known, but the depths remain impressive.
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
Joined:
May 6, 2014
Posts:
32,416
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
flown-the-coop said:
Yall done made Walz so mad he vows to never run for office again, but that his grass roots protesting stood in the face of the Trump admin and Trump backed down.
Libs live in a fantasy land of delusion. Well known, but the depths remain impressive.
I bet Tampon Tim thinks the Vikings won a couple of Super Bowls also, they just didn't score enough. Must have been all those pick 6 plays they called.
Person Not Capable of Pregnancy
4stringAg said:policywonk98 said:
Posted most of this message in another thread will post it here because I'm flabbergasted there are people arguing that citizens have a right to protest law enforcement operations at the point of operation.
If Pretti is at the bottom of the steps of the Capitol building with a protest sign asking Congress to change immigration laws he would still be alive today. If he was outside of this local congressman's office, he would still be alive today. If he was on any random corner bringing the issue to the attention of passersby he would still be alive today.
That is my starting and ending point on all debates on this subject. The shoot could be good or bad. I absolutely want to know that all law enforcement agencies including ICE are doing their level best to mitigate bad shoots even for those they are trying to apprehend I have no interest in seeing loss of life unless that life is truly threatening the lives of those apprehending them.
But in the case of Pretti and all would be protestors, good and bad shoot is secondary. This would be like acting like an entire war should be ended because an imbedded reporter is killed in the field of battle. If you voluntarily choose to go into a field of battle when you are neither the soldier or the enemy combatant, you take on certain risks.
This man chose to show up to an active law enforcement operation. I don't have to ask any of my friends who have been in law enforcement because I've heard enough of their stories over the years of what it's like when they are part of an operation to apprehend a suspect. If you insert some group of protesting people wanting to block or thwart your operation, that's not a good situation and the voluntary action of a protestor knowingly try to enter into an operation area takes 100% of the responsibility. Some free climber just scaled a skyscraper live on tv the other day. If that guy fell to his death that's not the building fault or the film crews fault. Nobody made him free climb that skyscraper.
It is absolutely absurd to me that anyone is defending people's right to organize a law enforcement COUNTER-Operation as a form of protest. That is not what the constitution is protecting. It's not. And to the extent that a state and municipality is withholding cooperating local Leo's for operations, that needs to be investigated to the extent there are long standing cooperative agreements and federal support to localities for the express purpose of cooperative ops in order to prevent these exact scenarios from happening.
Good shoots or bad shoots. Every operational shoot should be investigated and our law enforcement should do everything in their power to control the operational zone they are creating. Public safety has taken a back seat here and it largely rests on the shoulders of the governor of MN and mayor of Minneapolis, who are both trying to score political points with those that want no immigrations laws to exist much less enforcement of those laws.
This is a great post because it touches on the First Amendment argument leftists are making that he "had a right to protest" which as you adeptly pointed out what he was doing was not protesting but interfering which is breaking federal law and not protected freedom of assembly.
Further, on the 2A arguments that the leftists are throwing around, his 2A protections ended when he interfered and thus committed a federal crime while carrying a gun. And its the Jurassic Park Ian Malcolm statement on his decision to carry: while he was too busy thinking he could carry a gun, he didn't stop to think if he should carry a gun knowing he was going to disrupt and agitate.
Leftists are emotional children arguing about this from a child's POV based on instant reaction from video and hindsight.
All great points.
About your last point which I have emphasized, we need to be less general that the left isn't simply a bunch of overly emotional dimwits.
There are psychopaths, people without conscience and without morality, in positions of influence and power and atop the ruling class, in addition to those amidst the throng of pawns, who know exactly what they are doing. Through lies and deceit they are whipping into a frenzy the true believers and "emotional children" to achieve their selfish ends.
I've not seen any timeline on when Pretti broke his ribs. Doesn't really matter but broken ribs take up to 3months or more to heal AND are painful. It is not normal to treat fractures with violent protests. Makes me wonder about his stability rushing into 'peaceful combat' like that.
Oh, sayonara Tampon Timmy
Oh, sayonara Tampon Timmy
--------------
Nobody with open eyes can any longer doubt that the danger to personal freedom comes chiefly from the left. F. A. Hayek
Nobody with open eyes can any longer doubt that the danger to personal freedom comes chiefly from the left. F. A. Hayek
Here's a reasonable take:
AK Guy and Donut Operator's breakdown of the shooting
****NSFW due to language****
AK Guy and Donut Operator's breakdown of the shooting
****NSFW due to language****
Another piece of good news.
boom: https://t.co/LzJsbpTUrn
— DataRepublican (small r) (@DataRepublican) January 29, 2026
richardag said:Ryan the Temp said:1981 Monte Carlo said:Ryan the Temp said:Quote:
they just killed him for fun, or because he kicked out their tail light a few days earlier
This is a weird theory that is being floated by some people because Tom Homan allegedly bragged about tracking protesters.
They would be idiots not to track the violent and problematic ones (Like Pretti). We are dealing with psychos, many of which belong in funny farm. On top of all that, they literally view these agents as Nazis. Kamala and many more of your leaders have been calling them this since Trump's first term.
Not to mention the many actual attacks on ICE and BP just in the last year alone, which Don lemon and Jthe ladies from The View probably didn't relay to you and your democratic brethren, so I wouldn't expect you to know that many federal agents have been attacked by violent leftists.You've probably seen Don Lemon and The View more times than I have (which is zero),but don't let that stop you from making unsubstantiated judgments about me.
Agreed. I just disagree with your opinion on the legality of this shooting but admit IANAL. Better legal minds seem to indicate a tragic dearth that was a legal shooting. My opinion may be wrong and I hope for an honest investigation.
Please copy and paste anything I have posted on TA that expresses an opinion of the legality of the shooting.
Minnesota is just weird
🚨#BREAKING: A Minnesota man, Mark Anderson, has been officially charged after claiming and impersonating to be an FBI agent in an attempt to break Luigi Mangione out of his prison cell. pic.twitter.com/EC8xoFZ46I
— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) January 29, 2026
Featured Stories
See All
Jones aspires to join A&M's lineage of great defensive ends
by Olin Buchanan
14:22
1d ago
7.0k
Doubleheader sweep clinches second straight SEC series victory
by Richard Zane
Spring Football Snippets: Practice No. 8
by Olin Buchanan
13:35
23h ago
2.9k
Ford & Co. wins top-15 SEC series with UGA
by Kayla Gaither
47:54
13h ago
1.9k