"Only Criminals Carry Guns On Our Streets"--Donald Trump

<~~~~~~~~~~>
Obstruction of justice by interfering with an arrest by federal officers is a criminal act.
So had he been arrested instead of murdered at the scene, the sentence for obstruction is as follows:

🔹 This statute applies to anyone who:

"forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties."
ICE officers are covered under this statute because they are federal officers.

🔹 Penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 111:​

  • Simple obstruction (no weapon or injury):
    Up to 1 year in prison (misdemeanor).
  • If physical contact occurs:
    Up to 8 years in prison (felony).
  • If a deadly or dangerous weapon is used or serious bodily injury results:
    Up to 20 years in prison.

🔹 In U.S. law:​

  • Obstruction of justice or interference with a federal officer is a prosecutable offense, not one that justifies the use of deadly force.
  • Lethal force is only lawful under very narrow conditions—typically when the person poses an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm to officers or others.
  • Use of force guidelines—from both DOJ and DHS—require de-escalation whenever possible, especially in immigration enforcement.
So yes, your implication is valid: obstruction does not carry a death sentence, and executing someone without trial for it is not justice—it is an abuse of power.

And for clarification:
Reference to a weapon under the statute means use of the weapon to obstruct, not merely its presence—such as in this case, where it was legally carried in a concealed manner.

Likewise, “physical contact” refers to contact initiated by the individual, not contact resulting from the individual being tackled, dogpiled, or making incidental contact with agents while attempting to defend oneself or prevent physical injury inflicted by the aggressive actions of the agents.
 
<~~~~~~~~~~>
Indeed, but that is what happens when you foolishly carry a weapon (Legally or otherwise) into a protest where Law Enforcement is trying to do it's job and you interfere. and obstruct the job they're doing...
That still does not justify it. AND there are plenty of situations where you can openly protest even while carrying a weapon without being shot dead on some made-up bs about you being a threat. Pretti did have a gun, but they didn't know that or shouldn't have known he had a gun because it was lawfully concealed. UNLESS perhaps they profiled & then targeted him knowing he had a license for concealed carry.

If you all want to make the argument that the agents were right to shoot, then you have to craft it around a REASON and imminent (immediate) threat to the agent(s) or others because that's the ONLY ground for deadly force. Obstruction simply is NOT.
 
You realize what the definition of 'lie' is, right?

I do not know what Trump's intentions were. I'm simply telling you what I believe Trump was getting at.

When Kyle Rittenhouse took a gun to a protest (riot), he was on the side of law and order, and was very much on the side of the police.
On the other hand, this man that was shot, brought a gun to a protest, and he was not in the least on the side of the police. Therefore, his reasons for bringing one looks very suspicious. This is what I believe Trump was suggesting, that in this case, bringing a gun looks like the intent is for criminal activity.
But he's wrong no matter which perspective he was viewing the situation from.
 
Why do you feel a need to try to interpret what Trump said and put it in a different presumably more palatable context.
Obviously, for the same reason that you liberals told us what the vegetable and his incompetent veep meant. Remember that we have been unburdened by the burden that could have been. LOL
 
That still does not justify it. AND there are plenty of situations where you can openly protest even while carrying a weapon without being shot dead on some made-up bs about you being a threat. Pretti did have a gun, but they didn't know that or shouldn't have known he had a gun because it was lawfully concealed. UNLESS perhaps they profiled & then targeted him knowing he had a license for concealed carry.

If you all want to make the argument that the agents were right to shoot, then you have to craft it around a REASON and imminent (immediate) threat to the agent(s) or others because that's the ONLY ground for deadly force. Obstruction simply is NOT.
He would never have been touched by ICE had he not attempted to disrupt their lawful operation. He initiated it when he interfered. Protest does not include obstruction. Try again.
 
No one was executed and you know it. Quite funny you pursue than line of flawed thinking.
Agent saw a gun, exclaimed 'gun', pulled gun from perp's holster, it unexplainably discharged and agents responded to what they perceived as shots fired at them. Tragic for all.
Well this is the first time I've seen this version of the alleged events that took place. This is absolutely pathetic.
 
So had he been arrested instead of murdered at the scene, the sentence for obstruction is as follows:
He didn't only obstruct, he actively interfered with the officers in the performance of their duties. They didn't chase him down, he inserted himself into the operation. They discovered the weapon while he was being taken down for arrest. You're being intentionally obtuse which is quite disingenuous---unless you're not.
 
When you interfere with LE operations.

Can you just put yourself in between LE and someone you feel isn’t being treated justly by them? Even if you’re right?
I'd bet you'd be surprised to know if happens more frequently than you seem to realize. Not always to a good end but it doesn't always end in death either.
 
It is reported he had so much ammo he could execute two dozen citizens.
Minnesota law says one must have a permit. But if it is hidden, who knows? He never produced a permit, but the cops saw he had the 9mm pistol you named.
I think he had less than a box of ammo, I don't recall the capacity of each of his magazines especially since we're restricted to 10 rounds per mag here.

Unless they were purchased before the law restricting them went into effect.
 
But I think signs of aggression include more than those (brandishing..etc). If he spat on a LEO vehicle, and similar things then the LE would be justified in reaching the conclusion that he had aggressive intention and could go on to commit greater violence. And if they sincerely believed that their lives would be endangered, then yes they could use deadly force to neutralize such a threat.
The law requires REASONABLE belief not SINCERE belief.

They could be wholeheartedly sincere in their beliefs and still be sincerely WRONG.
 
He didn't only obstruct, he actively interfered with the officers in the performance of their duties. They didn't chase him down, he inserted himself into the operation. They discovered the weapon while he was being taken down for arrest. You're being intentionally obtuse which is quite disingenuous---unless you're not.
The alleged offense he committed is still NOT a capital offense.

THEREFORE, summary execution, which is the agent(s) acting as judge, jury and executioner ALL at the time of the offense, is not the lawfully stated punishment for the alleged offense he committed. Even if he did commit the crime of obstruction.

How is that disingenuous?
 
That still does not justify it. AND there are plenty of situations where you can openly protest even while carrying a weapon without being shot dead on some made-up bs about you being a threat. Pretti did have a gun, but they didn't know that or shouldn't have known he had a gun because it was lawfully concealed. UNLESS perhaps they profiled & then targeted him knowing he had a license for concealed carry.

If you all want to make the argument that the agents were right to shoot, then you have to craft it around a REASON and imminent (immediate) threat to the agent(s) or others because that's the ONLY ground for deadly force. Obstruction simply is NOT.
<~~~~~~~~~~>
It appears that Alex J. Pretti RN at the VA has a dark past.
There's an investigation being conducted.
The question is how long was Pretti working as an agent provocateur for the seditious Marxist DSA?
Did Pretti martyr himself or did je become over zealous in his job a protester....
 
15th post
Obviously, for the same reason that you liberals told us what the vegetable and his incompetent veep meant. Remember that we have been unburdened by the burden that could have been. LOL
I never told you or anyone else a damn thing about President Biden, so just go ahead and add another delusion to your pile.
 
Back
Top Bottom