Pretti Shooting my opinion as a member of US Lawfare

[Hafar1014]

The latest report from the Federal government supports this was an illegal use of deadly force. After He was disarmed there was no imminent threat. 5 seconds after the gun was taken away he was shot by two agents. There were no furtive movements, and he was restrained, violently resisting yes, but unarmed. The agents screwed up.

In context Pretti had a violent encounter a week before breaking his rib, went to the protest/riot with a loaded gun, and was looking to get even. An act of total stupidity. But the use of deadly force was not justified.

DHS report says 2 agents fired weapons in Alex Pretti shooting

DHS report sent to the House Oversight Committee says two federal agents shot Alex Pretti and does not say that Pretti drew his gun.

abcnews.go.com

 

[SweetSue92]

The latest report from the Federal government supports this was an illegal use of deadly force. After He was disarmed there was no imminent threat. 5 seconds after the gun was taken away he was shot by two agents. There were no furtive movements, and he was restrained, violently resisting yes, but unarmed. The agents screwed up.

In context Pretti had a violent encounter a week before breaking his rib, went to the protest/riot with a loaded gun, and was looking to get even. An act of total stupidity. But the use of deadly force was not justified.

DHS report says 2 agents fired weapons in Alex Pretti shooting

DHS report sent to the House Oversight Committee says two federal agents shot Alex Pretti and does not say that Pretti drew his gun.

abcnews.go.com

I think this makes sense, but am wondering what will be said about the fact that the police probably couldn't hear one another because of the whistles and racket.

 

[Hafar1014]

I think this makes sense, but am wondering what will be said about the fact that the police probably couldn't hear one another because of the whistles and racket.

IM certain they did hear shots of gun as they were only a few feet away and saw the gun

 

[citygator]

The latest report from the Federal government supports this was an illegal use of deadly force. After He was disarmed there was no imminent threat. 5 seconds after the gun was taken away he was shot by two agents. There were no furtive movements, and he was restrained, violently resisting yes, but unarmed. The agents screwed up.

In context Pretti had a violent encounter a week before breaking his rib, went to the protest/riot with a loaded gun, and was looking to get even. An act of total stupidity. But the use of deadly force was not justified.

DHS report says 2 agents fired weapons in Alex Pretti shooting

DHS report sent to the House Oversight Committee says two federal agents shot Alex Pretti and does not say that Pretti drew his gun.

abcnews.go.com

You cant possibly know "he was looking to get even". You cant read minds and you cant ask a dead man. You are just assigning evil intentions to a dead man to soften the blow of the killing, to make it seem like it was saving some future issue. Justice doesnt work like that. You dont get to make up his motivations.

There is also no video evidence of the encounter from a week earlier that you allude to. Whether it happened or not cannot be trusted from the same people telling us he was intending to do massive damage and assassinating ICE agents. We saw that wasnt true. They cant be trusted. We need to see with our own eyes.

I will give you credit for posting an actual thread instead of just trolling though. Nice growth.

 

[rightwinger]

I think this makes sense, but am wondering what will be said about the fact that the police probably couldn't hear one another because of the whistles and racket.

EIther case

They need to see an actual gun and he was face down

 

[SweetSue92]

EIther case

They need to see an actual gun and he was face down

He had an actual gun and again, since it was an absolute melee, the shooting officer might have barely heard "GUN" and thought it meant he was reaching for it or something.

Pretti wandered into an active law enforcement situation armed, and had done so before. He might have been wrongfully shot but it certainly wasn't in an "innocent bystander" capacity.

 

[Hafar1014]

You cant possibly know "he was looking to get even". You cant read minds and you cant ask a dead man. You are just assigning evil intentions to a dead man to soften the blow of the killing, to make it seem like it was saving some future issue. Justice doesnt work like that. You dont get to make up his motivations.

There is also no video evidence of the encounter from a week earlier that you allude to. Whether it happened or not cannot be trusted from the same people telling us he was intending to do massive damage and assassinating ICE agents. We saw that wasnt true. They cant be trusted. We need to see with our own eyes.

I will give you credit for posting an actual thread instead of just trolling though. Nice growth.

There is an official report by the Federal Government. Pretti wanted revenge thats why he was there with a gun and acted in a stupid way but he should not have been shot

 

[Hafar1014]

He had an actual gun and again, since it was an absolute melee, the shooting officer might have barely heard "GUN" and thought it meant he was reaching for it or something.

Pretti wandered into an active law enforcement situation armed, and had done so before. He might have been wrongfully shot but it certainly wasn't in an "innocent bystander" capacity.

He was not armed when shot making the shooting unlawful

 

[Hafar1014]

EIther case

They need to see an actual gun and he was face down

They need to see the gun in his hand or him reaching for a fun. That was not the case

 

[SweetSue92]

He was not armed when shot making the shooting unlawful

Sure. But did the officers know that. How culpable are they, is the question.

 

[Hafar1014]

Sure. But did the officers know that. How culpable are they, is the question.

They are 100% guilty of wrongful use of deadly force. They are on the scene and can see he is no longer armed.

 

[SweetSue92]

They are 100% guilty of wrongful use of deadly force. They are on the scene and can see he is no longer armed.

We have the luxury of multiple angles of this event, can freeze frame it and can slow it down. It doesn't happen like that in the moment. It might have been wrongful use of deadly force, but we can't judge that in freeze frame time. It will be judged as it occurred, including with bystanders blowing whistles that have the ability to hit 120 decibels.

 

[Hafar1014]

We have the luxury of multiple angles of this event, can freeze frame it and can slow it down. It doesn't happen like that in the moment. It might have been wrongful use of deadly force, but we can't judge that in freeze frame time. It will be judged as it occurred, including with bystanders blowing whistles that have the ability to hit 120 decibels.

There is an Official government report the video is useless. We know what happened.

 

[citygator]

There is an official report by the Federal Government. Pretti wanted revenge thats why he was there with a gun and acted in a stupid way but he should not have been shot

No official can conclude why he was at a protest. You didnt link anything saying that. You just made it up. But in your fantasy if he was there for revenge it was by using his phone to capture ICE criminal actions because that is all he did.

 

[citygator]

There is an Official government report the video is useless. We know what happened.

Back to trolling. Cool. Later.

 

[Hafar1014]

Back to trolling. Cool. Later.

Have anything intelligent to offer?

 

[DGS49]

Certainly, one needs to look closely at what transpired and what caused the agents to employ their firearms. As the saying goes, "No one is above the law."

But the Big Picture remains. He was fighting and impeding the enforcement of Federal law, which is a crime. He carried a loaded weapon to a "peaceful demonstration," which shows terrible judgment, to put it mildly.

This is no tragedy. It was an unfortunate incident, totally avoidable by the deceased.

If a bystander had been shot and killed - "collateral damage," so to speak - THAT would have been a tragedy. This was not.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think this makes sense, but am wondering what will be said about the fact that the police probably couldn't hear one another because of the whistles and racket.

THere were no "whistles", that was only occuring during the part where the women were on the other side of the street.

WW

 

[Hafar1014]

Certainly, one needs to look closely at what transpired and what caused the agents to employ their firearms. As the saying goes, "No one is above the law."

But the Big Picture remains. He was fighting and impeding the enforcement of Federal law, which is a crime. He carried a loaded weapon to a "peaceful demonstration," which shows terrible judgment, to put it mildly.

This is no tragedy. It was an unfortunate incident, totally avoidable by the deceased.

If a bystander had been shot and killed - "collateral damage," so to speak - THAT would have been a tragedy. This was not.

He was not an imminent threat after he was disarmed. One must be an imminent threat to allow use of deadly force. He didnt have a gun when shot. Thats the issue

 

[hadit]

We have the luxury of multiple angles of this event, can freeze frame it and can slow it down. It doesn't happen like that in the moment. It might have been wrongful use of deadly force, but we can't judge that in freeze frame time. It will be judged as it occurred, including with bystanders blowing whistles that have the ability to hit 120 decibels.

There is no doubt the bystanders contributed to a chaotic environment and heightened tensions among LE, and one can only wish this will cause them to realize they are contributing to the situation that caused one of their own to be killed. That doesn't diminish the officers' responsibility to use the training they got on how to handle such a situation. If he was violently resisting, they could have Rodney King'd him and not shot him.