How the Trump Administration Rushed to Judgment in Minneapolis Shooting - The Trump Administration Is Lying to Our Faces. Congress Must Act.

[j-mac]

ICE was assaulting a woman.

Because to you psychos, if cops want to assault you, you’re supposed to just accept it.

Rational people don’t actively try to obstruct a Federal law enforcement activity, and a responsible CCW holder wouldn’t carry to do that.

 

[struth]

Because photo's "don't move", if they did we would call them a video.

The link below is to a video which shows movement. And it is the one I took the screen grab from. It cleary shows from two perspectives that Pretti was disarmed, that Officer Gray Coat exited the scrum and that the shot in the back occured AFTER he'd left the scrum.

Now think through this.

The video's do not show a discharge. The officer (I'll call him Officer Gray for his coat) that recovered the firearm left the scrum with the firearm in his right hand.

Human nature and especially for law enforcement, instinct is going to be to look in the direction of a firearm being discharged to assess the situation and any possible threat.

Now watch the videos, at the time the first shot is fired, Officer Gray looked over his shoulder to his LEFT because that appears to be where the sound comes from. He was holding Pretti's firearm in his right hand, if that gun had accidently discharged he wouldn't have looked left, he would have looked right at the weapon in his hand that had just fired.

The "accidental discharge" theory make no sense. As a matter of fact video analysis shows that the officer in the blank mask behind Pretti that had just watched Officer Gray exit the scrum was the first to fire based on sound, pointing the weapon, and his arm recoiling do to his discharge.

Now if a ballistic report shows the gun was discharged and compares a recovered shell casing against gun markings? Sure, I'll agree there was a discharge of Pretti's firearm.

WW
.
.
.

You told me to watch, something happen…wasn’t sure how I was suppose to do that with a photo

I never said he discharged his firearm. Not sure anyone did.

 

[Lesh]

It was all happening very fast

It did not have to

 

[Marener]

They were detaining/arresting a suspect

They weren’t. At no point in time did the ICE officer attempt to detain or arrest her. He just kept shoving her again and again and again.

That’s no police work. That’s just assault.

 

[struth]

When the sequence was:

• Officer removes the firearm from the back holster,
• Officer exits the scrum with the firearm,
• Another officer that just watched the weapon be removed shoots the victim in the back

It is not dishonest to say the officer shot an unarmed man in the back.

WW

You don’t know if any of the other officers actually saw the firearm removed more over you don’t know if they didn’t think he had another firearm

 

[Lesh]

They were detaining/arresting a suspect

Actually they had thrown her to the ground and were spraying her with mace

She was never detained nor arrested

 

[Marener]

Rational people don’t actively try to obstruct a Federal law enforcement activity, and a responsible CCW holder wouldn’t carry to do that.

There was no obstruction. There wasn’t even any real law enforcement activity.

Just a bunch of masked thugs looking to hurt people.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You don’t know if any of the other officers actually saw the firearm removed more over you don’t know if they didn’t think he had another firearm

I provided the screen shot where the officer who fired the first shot litterally watched the officer in the gray coat remove the firearm and exit the scrum.

Now make an excuse that the officer watched it but didn't see it.

WW

 

[struth]

I provided the screen shot where the officer who fired the first shot litterally watched the officer in the gray coat remove the firearm and exit the scrum.

Now make an excuse that the officer watched it but didn't see it.

WW

But it’s a screen shot, in real time it’s happening in seconds, not frozen time, you have no idea what he saw or didn’t see in those few seconds

Moreover for argument sake maybe that officer did see that, there is no way for that officer to know that was his only firearm

What you are trying to do, is play Monday morning QB, with the benefit of hindsight. The courts specially said they can’t and won’t do that in these sort of cases because well, it would be wrong

 

[j-mac]

There was no obstruction. There wasn’t even any real law enforcement activity.

Just a bunch of masked thugs looking to hurt people.

Those conclusions are ridiculous, and sound desperate.

total partisan bs.

 

[Marener]

Those conclusions are ridiculous, and sound desperate.

total partisan bs.

It’s on video. Many angles.

The federal thug has to walk all the way across the street just to shove a woman to the ground.

What kind of psychopath do you have to be to defend that kind of shit?

 

[struth]

It’s on video. Many angles.

The federal thug has to walk all the way across the street just to shove a woman to the ground.

What kind of psychopath do you have to be to defend that kind of shit?

The cops chasing after a fleeing suspect, when a suspect flees they often have to chase them

You got to be a real psychopath to arm yourself and pack forty rounds of Ammo on you to jump in the middle of an arrest

 

[j-mac]

It’s on video. Many angles.

The federal thug has to walk all the way across the street just to shove a woman to the ground.

What kind of psychopath do you have to be to defend that kind of shit?

Where did I say anything defending anything?

In fact I posted in any number of the other thousand threads on this that it didn't look good for the agents, and possibly a reason that the administration was trying to turn the temp down...

The display that you would just type some blindly partisan crap on this to me shows that your posting is just knee jerk bullshit....

Do better.

 

[candycorn]

Two narratives that made it into articles in a major Newspaper (one that evidently scares the bejeezuz out of djt): "https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/25/...istration-minneapolis-shooting-response.html?" and "The Trump Administration Is Lying to Our Faces. Congress Must Act."

The second one is based on irrefutable facts. We evidence from the bench, where courts have said this is so. The first article? Also, based on irrefutable facts. So how does one argue against them and appear to be reasonable and rational?



side-note: Bari Weiss and her guy d Tony Dokoupil, have attacked news using views that are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values.

Congress is supposed to have an oversight role.

 

[j-mac]

Congress is supposed to have an oversight role.

That's cute...You're realizing that Democrats are out of power....Good for you.

 

[Marener]

Where did I say anything defending anything?

In fact I posted in any number of the other thousand threads on this that it didn't look good for the agents, and possibly a reason that the administration was trying to turn the temp down...

The display that you would just type some blindly partisan crap on this to me shows that your posting is just knee jerk bullshit....

Do better.

You’re defending it by denying it.

If all you can say is “it didn’t look good”, then you’re downplaying it. It’s not that it didn’t “look” good. It wasn’t good. It was bad.

 

[j-mac]

You’re defending it by denying it.

If all you can say is “it didn’t look good”, then you’re downplaying it. It’s not that it didn’t “look” good. It wasn’t good. It was bad.

I'll wait for the results of the investigation...OTOH, what would you like to see...Bet, I can guess....lol

 

[Marener]

I'll wait for the results of the investigation...OTOH, what would you like to see...Bet, I can guess....lol

Because you can’t trust your own eyes?

Good grief.

 

[j-mac]

Because you can’t trust your own eyes?

Good grief.

Yep, just as I thought....refuse to answer the question....get lost loser....

 

[Marener]

Yep, just as I thought....refuse to answer the question....get lost loser....

I didn’t see a question. Maybe you need better punctuation and clearer sentence structure.

Your stance, see what the investigation reveals, is an excuse to not have to think about it. This is avoidance. Mental weakness.