ICE Murders Innocent Person in Minneapolis

[IsntLifeFunny]

The same people talking about gun safety are the ones who thought this lady being head of DHS was a good idea lol 

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/IThinkYouShouldLeave/s/LT8SbbqbUx

 

 

[reo]

13 minutes ago, LongTimeFan said:

Never once did I say it lowered the threshold for lethal response. You make up shit and then post it as a point to debate.

 

That is why I rarely interact with you anymore. 

 

And I wont respond to any response you have to this. Have a good day.

 

I’m not attributing a belief to you. I’m challenging the implication of the argument as written.

 

If prior warnings, prior noncompliance, or someone’s reputation as an “agitator” are being cited as factors that justify lethal force, then the standard has been lowered whether intended or not.

 

Under U.S. law, lethal force turns only on whether there is an objectively reasonable, imminent threat at the moment the trigger is pulled. Not earlier behavior. Not annoyance. Not pattern. Not disobedience.

 

If you agree with that standard, then we agree on the core issue. If you disagree, that is the disagreement.

 

That distinction matters beyond this case.

[reo]

2 minutes ago, Titandan said:

Seems like the law is different for Law Enforcement.  I respect your opinion but I'm not sure this will have any bearing on how they will apply it in court. 

 

The law isn’t different on the core question.

 

Law enforcement is judged under the same constitutional standard: whether a reasonable officer would believe there was an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm at the moment force was used.

 

What’s different is deference to perspective, not permission to use force for noncompliance, prior warnings, or obstruction alone.

 

Courts don’t ask whether force made things safer in hindsight. They ask whether the threat was imminent and specific when the trigger was pulled.

[IsntLifeFunny]

1 minute ago, Titandan said:

Your training program didn't give you any instructions on how to communicate with officers if you have a firearm on you?

I'm a bit rusty and can't quote verbatim on what the proper protocol was but what I looked up seems spot on. 
 

Informing Officers About Concealed Weapons Requires Careful Communication
In Minnesota, it is crucial to inform law enforcement officers if you are carrying a concealed weapon. Here are the key steps to follow:

Here are key points to consider:

1. Know Your State Laws

Different states have varying laws regarding the duty to inform officers about carrying a concealed weapon. Some states require immediate notification, while others do not mandate it unless asked

2. Communicate Calmly and Clearly

When approached by an officer, remain calm. Clearly state that you are a concealed carry permit holder and that you are armed. Use phrases like, "I want to inform you that I am carrying a concealed weapon"

3. Follow Officer Instructions

After informing the officer, follow their instructions carefully. Keep your hands visible and avoid sudden movements to ensure safety for both parties

 

Are we sure he didn't tell them? Would him telling them have changed the outcome? Is it the law to tell law enforcement you're armed? It isn't. 

 

You can come up with a bunch of bullshit to try to justify any of this, but from a moral standpoint it's reprehensible, a logical one it's stupid, and from a legal standpoint what happened was murder. 

 

Now, that doesn't mean I would do the same thing as Pretti, because I wouldn't, but then again I don't feel the need to conceal carry. The fact he has a license for it shows he does, and that this was apart of his lifestyle, which is his right. Him being in the street isn't something I would do, but he wasn't breaking the law and put no one in danger by doing so. Swatting away the arm of an agent who pushed a woman off her feet isn't dangerous. Being jumped and laying with your knuckles on the ground isn't either. 

 

He wasn't a threat at any point in the scenario. You know who is the threat? That's right, the masked up paramilitary group roaming the streets. 

[IsntLifeFunny]

Ruh roh. The idiots are turning on one another. 

[OzTitan]

I don't know if that's shifting the blame or just her trying to show the cult it was all sanctioned so don't worry about it

[IsntLifeFunny]

6 minutes ago, OzTitan said:

I don't know if that's shifting the blame or just her trying to show the cult it was all sanctioned so don't worry about it

Maybe not, but invoking Miller would seem to be.  

[reo]

7 minutes ago, Titandan said:

According to the lawyers debating during the Megyn Kelly video I linked, it seems like the lawyers on opposing sides both agreed that the officer just needs to have a "reasonable perception" of threat. I understand why that would be applied differently to officers since they have to make split second decisions from these type of interactions.  They don't have to be correct perceptions or correct decisions.  They just need to be reasonable decisions based on their perceptions and the prosecutor would have to disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt.  

I believe it's the Graham vs Connor case that the lawyers would citing. Feel free to look it up if you want. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_v._Connor

Once again, I'm not disagreeing with your opinion on what happened. But I think they will apply the law a bit differently.  

 

I agree Graham v. Connor is the right framework, and you’re right that officers don’t have to be correct, only reasonable.

 

The key clarification is this: “reasonable perception” is not whatever the officer personally felt in the moment. It’s whether a reasonable officer, with the same information, would perceive an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

 

Courts still reject force when the perceived threat is vague, generalized, or not attributable to the person who was shot. Split-second judgment matters, but imminence and specificity still have to be present.

 

That’s why these cases turn so heavily on what the person was doing at the moment force was used, not on prior noncompliance or earlier warnings.

[IsntLifeFunny]

4 minutes ago, Titandan said:

I'm not disagreeing that Pretti should be alive.  I'm also not disagreeing that the officers were wrong in their altercation.  I genuinely hope the first officer gets disciplined and maybe even jail time.  

I'm also glad you would do things differently.  You're smarter than I thought JK LOL 

As a matter of safety and to prevent this from happening again (or limit it), people with deadly weapons/vehicles should probably just comply with law enforcement from here on in. 

Showing up to a protest with a gun means you're ready if shit really does hit the fan.  Especially if Pretti already had a previous altercation with ICE the previous week and he thought he was going to die.  

No.  I don't think Pretti was being violent in that video and I think he did very little to warrant the treatment that he received by the officers even before he was killed.  But I do think he was stupid to get into it with that officer and I definitely think he was idiotic to show up with a gun.  

I disagree, but I appreciate the POV. Not what I would do, but he has a license to carry and was well within his rights. 

[OzTitan]

Is showing previous confrontations supposed to make him look bad or killable or something? because you're also starting to show maybe this was a targeted killing or at least the killer had revenge on his mind and that influenced his actions.

[Callidus]

1 hour ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

Victim blaming after Trump sidelined Bovino and Noem is truly hilarious. The man did nothing illegal or unsafe. The agents who shot him did. It's really easy to see that's the case. 

They also put the involved agents on administrative leave  

[OzTitan]

5 minutes ago, Titandan said:

Well if he's been there harassing the agents for weeks, I could understand their agitation.  

But I still prefaced by saying "it still doesn't justify the officers' actions this past week."  
Similar to someone's complaint about multiple angles of video footage for the Good killing, why not welcome more details that might add to the context of this investigation?   

Initial reaction for the first video looked bad.  I withheld my judgement but when the more complete footages appeared, I felt more comfortable with my assessment that the officers were definitely in the wrong.

But if this really is Pretti, does add some context to the entire situation.  If you cared about the truth, you should welcome all pertinent information regarding him, his purpose for being there, and details about the officers involved as well.  Once again, even if he was an agitator or obstructing officers, I don't think he deserved to be killed.  

By all means link to it etc, it's relevant, just perhaps not in the way you may intend. Your last sentence nails it - it doesn't move the needle on whether he "deserved" to be killed, but it may move the needle on how poorly the agent(s) handled the situation. It also shows systemic failure and more clearly shows a failure in duty of care if agents with personal grudged are being allowed back out there.

[reo]

17 minutes ago, Titandan said:

Well if he's been there harassing the agents for weeks, I could understand their agitation.  

 

Pretty much the entire city is protesting these agents and what they're doing. So yes, odds are he was out there every day.

 

Regular people are organizing groups to help notify their neighbors when ICE is present. They have a system of everyone carrying whistles so when ICE is seen and they hear whistles EVERYONE goes outside to confront them. It's why we have SOOO many videos of protestors confronting ICE.

 

People are driving their scared neighbors to work. People are organizing to buy food for neighbors who are too scared to go outside at risk of being deported even if they're legal.

 

This is everywhere. You need to pay attention to the other thread of ICE abuses. The people aren't doing this b/c of how the "media" is protraying ICE. They're doing it b/c of how ICE is behaving. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 29 by reo

[reo]

2 minutes ago, Titandan said:

At the end of the day, we are dealing with imperfect human beings (just like you and I). 

 

We are dealing w/ an administration who openly called Alex Pretti a domestic terrorist who went out there w/ the intent to kill as many ICE agents as possible. 

[reo]

Just now, Titandan said:

Well obviously that's wrong... and based on the firing of the ICE dude, looks like they are reversing course somewhat.  

I think you guys pay much better attention to what Trump and his admin are saying and doing than even I do. 

Hats off to you, my friend 

 

Watch the things I posted at the very least. You don't even have to respond.

Edited January 29 by reo