ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis
-
Inappropriate term. Bothsidesism refers to both sides doing approximately the same thing. That does not apply in any way here. Horace makes an excellent point about ICE officers having far less time to consider what actions to take.
@Mik said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
Horace makes an excellent point about ICE officers having far less time to consider what actions to take.
I think it's worth considering at what point in the proceedings ICE officers decided to empty 10 rounds of ammunition into somebody lying face down on the ground. Because, it seemed like a bit of an over-reaction from this admittedly layman's perspective.
Sure, they were a bit rushed, but still.....
-
There are studies and data on police shootings. And when they interview the officers involved and ask them how many shots they and/or others fired, almost 100% underestimate by almost a factor of 10. ( I would think that the same would be true of soldiers also.)
That does not make an excuse for what happened in MN, but I guess if you talked to the ICE people before they saw/heard the videos, etc., they would probably say that there were maybe two shots fired.
-
Texas has like 10x the ICE deportations as MN, and zero events like this. Of course that is entirely because Texas doesn't have this cosplay self righteous antifa culture that all the cool kids in Minneapolis are doing. Anybody can cry their tears over their consequences as they please.
Of course that is entirely because Texas doesn't have this cosplay self righteous antifa culture that all the cool kids in Minneapolis are doing.
Not from my experience with Texans either, although I can hardly describe Texans as anywhere near passive. Quite the opposite. The sort that would form squads of paramilitary patriots to take ICE head on. Failing that they would cosplay a mass Texas Rangers posse and charter a bus
convoy filled with patriots to Washington and storm the Capital Building along the lines of January 6 all the time hollering and yelling “Remember the Alamo”! -
@Mik said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
Neither death was anything but a joint effort from all parties.
That’s been my take…
-
@Mik said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
Neither death was anything but a joint effort from all parties.
Responsibility may have been shared. The consequences have not.
@Doctor-Phibes said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
@Mik said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
Neither death was anything but a joint effort from all parties.
Responsibility may have been shared. The consequences have not
The consequences for the shooter and the victim are not, but that wasn’t who Mik was referring to.
-
The social consequences are of great benefit to the Trump hating tribe. And those consequences are fairly important.
Not more important than a single human life, though. Not any more than the BLM riots were more important than the life of Saint Floyd. Those fake 20s aren’t going to pass themselves.
Education is extremely important.
-
Can someone catch me up with the debate here? To me it seems pretty simple. Pretti was out there to protest and yes was legally carrying a firearm in his back waistband. He was holding his phone up and (at worst) shouting at officers while standing in the street), this resulted in the officers pushing him and a lady back to the sidewalk, he turned to help the lady, the officers pepper sprayed and grabbed him and tackled him and in the chaos, they see his gun, someone yells he has a gun, an officer disarms Pretti, the cop that switches from pepper spray can to gun accidentally (maybe on purpose, but I like to think accidentally) fires a shot, at which point he (and others) continue to shoot (which is normal), and Pretti dies in the street. Legal, unarmed, executed with 10 shots.
If he wasn't protesting? He'd be alive.
If he didn't have a legal gun in his back waist band? he'd be alive.
The officer who either shot on purpose or accidentally (who knows, it seems this is a rookie training event) is singularly responsible for the death and officers have been found guilty for far less offenses. I'm almost always on the side of cops such as the accidental shooting (she thought it was a taser) or even George Floyd. In this case it was reckless/negligent/idiocy by the guy who fired the first shot. Without it, nothing bad would've happened.
-
The social consequences are of great benefit to the Trump hating tribe. And those consequences are fairly important.
Not more important than a single human life, though. Not any more than the BLM riots were more important than the life of Saint Floyd. Those fake 20s aren’t going to pass themselves.
@Horace said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
The social consequences are of great benefit to the Trump hating tribe. And those consequences are fairly important.
Well OK, that's fair enough. However, it's worth noting that these were also significantly affected by the additional shots fired by Kristi Noem, who managed to get herself squarely in the foot.
-
Can someone catch me up with the debate here? To me it seems pretty simple. Pretti was out there to protest and yes was legally carrying a firearm in his back waistband. He was holding his phone up and (at worst) shouting at officers while standing in the street), this resulted in the officers pushing him and a lady back to the sidewalk, he turned to help the lady, the officers pepper sprayed and grabbed him and tackled him and in the chaos, they see his gun, someone yells he has a gun, an officer disarms Pretti, the cop that switches from pepper spray can to gun accidentally (maybe on purpose, but I like to think accidentally) fires a shot, at which point he (and others) continue to shoot (which is normal), and Pretti dies in the street. Legal, unarmed, executed with 10 shots.
If he wasn't protesting? He'd be alive.
If he didn't have a legal gun in his back waist band? he'd be alive.
The officer who either shot on purpose or accidentally (who knows, it seems this is a rookie training event) is singularly responsible for the death and officers have been found guilty for far less offenses. I'm almost always on the side of cops such as the accidental shooting (she thought it was a taser) or even George Floyd. In this case it was reckless/negligent/idiocy by the guy who fired the first shot. Without it, nothing bad would've happened.
@89th said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
Can someone catch me up with the debate here? To me it seems pretty simple. Pretti was out there to protest and yes was legally carrying a firearm in his back waistband. He was holding his phone up and (at worst) shouting at officers while standing in the street), this resulted in the officers pushing him and a lady back to the sidewalk, he turned to help the lady, the officers pepper sprayed and grabbed him and tackled him and in the chaos, they see his gun, someone yells he has a gun, an officer disarms Pretti, the cop that switches from pepper spray can to gun accidentally (maybe on purpose, but I like to think accidentally) fires a shot, at which point he (and others) continue to shoot (which is normal), and Pretti dies in the street. Legal, unarmed, executed with 10 shots.
He was resisting arrest for like 4 seconds, trying to stand and flee or fight (who knows, maybe even use his gun). He was disarmed before we got a chance to find out, someone yells gun, not even the guy who disarmed him. That person probably only saw the gun in the hands of the ICE officer who disarmed Pretti. In the chaos, while Pretti was continuing to resist arrest, that word "gun" was heard by the wrong ICE officer at the wrong moment and he shot. And yes, at that point, the whole group, or enough of them, intended on ending Pretti's life, and it was, in the moment, an act of self-defense. Not actually, not in retrospect, but the psychology of the moment was self defense. We can infer this if we allow that the yelling of the word "gun" was necessary for this to happen.
It's actually perfectly reasonable to think that he may have used his gun if he'd managed to extricate himself from the group of cops attempting to restrain him. If not then, when? If not then, then why bring it at all?
Education is extremely important.
-
Is he definitely resisting arrest though? Potentially. But it looks like once he got pepper sprayed he goes into a defensive posture and even seems to try to climb on the woman in the white coat (maybe he thought he was shielding her?).
After that he’s on his hands and knees. Getting hit by some agents and getting pulled at by 4-5 agents at the same time.
He seems to be in an almost fetal position, which isn’t surprising given he just got sprayed and punched.
I’m not saying he wasn’t resisting - I’m saying it’s not clear that he definitely is.
-
Nate the Lawyer here makes a good case that the arrest was unlawful, and that it was an unjustified use of force. Which I always guessed might come of an investigation and prosecution.
This particular officer does not have the temperament to be screamed at all day.
Link to video -
Is he definitely resisting arrest though? Potentially. But it looks like once he got pepper sprayed he goes into a defensive posture and even seems to try to climb on the woman in the white coat (maybe he thought he was shielding her?).
After that he’s on his hands and knees. Getting hit by some agents and getting pulled at by 4-5 agents at the same time.
He seems to be in an almost fetal position, which isn’t surprising given he just got sprayed and punched.
I’m not saying he wasn’t resisting - I’m saying it’s not clear that he definitely is.
@xenon said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
Is he definitely resisting arrest though? Potentially.
From a legal perspective, since it's clear the officer was using unjustified force when he pushed the lady, Pretti's push back against the officer is probably ok. But they didn't have time for a court proceeding at that moment, and nature and consequence took over instead.
-
@89th said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
Can someone catch me up with the debate here? To me it seems pretty simple. Pretti was out there to protest and yes was legally carrying a firearm in his back waistband. He was holding his phone up and (at worst) shouting at officers while standing in the street), this resulted in the officers pushing him and a lady back to the sidewalk, he turned to help the lady, the officers pepper sprayed and grabbed him and tackled him and in the chaos, they see his gun, someone yells he has a gun, an officer disarms Pretti, the cop that switches from pepper spray can to gun accidentally (maybe on purpose, but I like to think accidentally) fires a shot, at which point he (and others) continue to shoot (which is normal), and Pretti dies in the street. Legal, unarmed, executed with 10 shots.
He was resisting arrest for like 4 seconds, trying to stand and flee or fight (who knows, maybe even use his gun). He was disarmed before we got a chance to find out, someone yells gun, not even the guy who disarmed him. That person probably only saw the gun in the hands of the ICE officer who disarmed Pretti. In the chaos, while Pretti was continuing to resist arrest, that word "gun" was heard by the wrong ICE officer at the wrong moment and he shot. And yes, at that point, the whole group, or enough of them, intended on ending Pretti's life, and it was, in the moment, an act of self-defense. Not actually, not in retrospect, but the psychology of the moment was self defense. We can infer this if we allow that the yelling of the word "gun" was necessary for this to happen.
It's actually perfectly reasonable to think that he may have used his gun if he'd managed to extricate himself from the group of cops attempting to restrain him. If not then, when? If not then, then why bring it at all?
It's actually perfectly reasonable to think that he may have used his gun if he'd managed to extricate himself from the group of cops attempting to restrain him. If not then, when?
I would argue that to be an unreasonable ex post facto assumption that would not withstand serious scrutiny. Any competent prosecuting barrister would shred that to pieces as statement of defence.
As to when he would have used it, no one knows because he cannot speak for himself because he’s now dead. However I think we can safely assume it was not for big game hunting or given his now known profile, to commit a criminal act. I suspect it was primarily for self defence - he did, after all, have an open carry permit - in the event he was the victim of a criminal act and needed to defend himself or his property.
If not then, then why bring it at all?
Again we do not know and we will not know conclusively because he is dead. We can only speculate why it was on his person at the time - self defence against criminals. The only fact we do know is that the video footage of the moments leading up to his murder do not indicate he made any attempt to draw the firearm in self defence or in anger to threaten the ICE troopers. Quite the opposite in fact and, as Xenon pointed out, he retreated to a defensive fetal position to protect himself.
-
It's so weird seeing American conservatives question why somebody needs to be armed.
What's next, an admission that East and West-coast housing is so expensive because they're the best bits of America?
-
One of the most ridiculous things anybody said was Kash Patel saying he had no right to be armed. Of course he had a right to be armed. But that choice sure did have consequences.
He chose to bring a gun into an intentionally tense situation, where using the gun would be certain suicide. Gun advocates who happen to be sane can judge the situation without being called hypocrites.
