Pretti Shooting my opinion as a member of US Lawfare

[OODA_Loop]

Doesn’t work like that
The first response to man with a gun is not kill him to be safe

Man on the ground, three officers holding him down
His hands are empty
Why are you shooting ?

Response to a man with gun youre fighting with is stop the threat. More times that not = defensive shooting.

It is why its is important to avoid any confrontation while armed, especially with police.

Pretti was fighting LE and there is about second that elapses before the discovery of his hidden gun and shots.

 

[SweetTea]

That's not what you claimed with Ashli, who was unarmed.

Can't have it both ways, boyo.

Evidently Ashli was a huge threat. Yeah, they don’t care. It is all about politics for them.

 

[Zavulon]

He could have 20 guns but if his hands are empty you don’t shoot

Do you have any ICE Field Manual (or any other protocol) that prohibed shooting for self-defense during continuous armed attack? As far as I understand their right to use lethal weapons started when they were attacked by the armed man, and it might ended only when the attack was ended, i.e. when attacker surrender and/or cease his resistance.

 

[Zavulon]

Doesn’t work like that
The first response to man with a gun is not kill him to be safe

It depends.

Man on the ground, three officers holding him down
His hands are empty
Why are you shooting ?

Those are two different questions - were their actions smart and were their actions legal? I don't think that well trained SWAT team cops, would shoot a criminal in this situation. But, from the legal point of view, as much as I understand the legal regulations (I might be wrong, and you can prove it by showing actual ICE protocols), law enforcement officers can use lethal force from the start of attack and until the end of attack (i.e. the moment of surrender, end of resistance). And ICE agents are not SWAT. They have no task to capture criminals for interrogations or something. Their goal is (as far as I understand it) "to remove kebab". And they remove obstacles on the way to their goal.

 

[rightwinger]

That's not what you claimed with Ashli, who was unarmed.

Can't have it both ways, boyo.

Ashli was leading a mob trying to hurt a Congressman
Pretti was helping a woman off the ground

 

[rightwinger]

It depends.


Those are two different questions - were their actions smart and were their actions legal? I don't think that well trained SWAT team cops, would shoot a criminal in this situation. But, from the legal point of view, as much as I understand the legal regulations (I might be wrong, and you can prove it by showing actual ICE protocols), law enforcement officers can use lethal force from the start of attack and until the end of attack (i.e. the moment of surrender, end of resistance). And ICE agents are not SWAT. They have no task to capture criminals for interrogations or something. Their goal is (as far as I understand it) "to remove kebab". And they remove obstacles on the way to their goal.

No

ICE does not get to say….
There is an alien
Shoot anybody who gets in the way

 

[westwall]

Ashli was leading a mob trying to hurt a Congressman
Pretti was helping a woman off the ground

Ashli was by herself, wrapped in a flag, standing next to uninterested police.

Your boy was fighting law enforcement, leading an insurrectionist mob, and HE had a gun, unlike Ashli.

You lose....

 

[rightwinger]

Ashli was by herself, wrapped in a flag, standing next to uninterested police.

Your boy was fighting law enforcement, leading an insurrectionist mob, and HE had a gun, unlike Ashli.

You lose....

Ashli was leading a mob trying to get Congress members

Kill Mike Pence
Kill Pelosi

 

[OldFlame]

If thousands of BLM rioters assault police and break into a government building to get to Trump and the members of his administration, would you want security to use any means necessary to defend our President? Would you be ok with them using lethal force if necessary? I would be ok with that.

As far as we know, Babbitt didn’t assault anyone. That’s not my point. Byrd knew that police were being intentionally, physically, violently assaulted. He didn’t know if Babbitt did, but he knew what was happening.

Does Byrd have a reason to believe that he would be assaulted if he lets the violent mob through that barricade? Does he have a reason to believe that our elected officials would be assaulted if he lets the violent mob through that barricade? I would argue yes. He acted on that reasonable belief and took out the first one to try to break through.

You're trying to obfuscate by continuing to talk about a 'mob', we've seen mobs rioting all over the country and very rarely is anyone shot and killed by law enforcement. They've taken over and burned down precincts, federal buildings, police cars, and even the Whitehouse during Trump's first term, and no one was shot. The 'mob' had nothing to do with her being shot, it should not have had anything to do with it if you're following the letter of the law that law enforcement officers have to follow in order to use deadly force. Nothing in the situation with Babbit called for deadly force. You're in here arguing that deadly force was not warranted on a protestor that was in a physical altercation with law enforcement and had a loaded weapon on him, yet in the Babbit situation you're claiming it was warranted when she was in no altercation and had no weapon. The location is irrelevant. If you claim that Pretti did not deserve lethal force and Babbit did, then you're nothing but a political hack and totally without any honesty or integrity at all.

 

[Hafar1014]

You're trying to obfuscate by continuing to talk about a 'mob', we've seen mobs rioting all over the country and very rarely is anyone shot and killed by law enforcement. They've taken over and burned down precincts, federal buildings, police cars, and even the Whitehouse during Trump's first term, and no one was shot. The 'mob' had nothing to do with her being shot, it should not have had anything to do with it if you're following the letter of the law that law enforcement officers have to follow in order to use deadly force. Nothing in the situation with Babbit called for deadly force. You're in here arguing that deadly force was not warranted on a protestor that was in a physical altercation with law enforcement and had a loaded weapon on him, yet in the Babbit situation you're claiming it was warranted when she was in no altercation and had no weapon. The location is irrelevant. If you claim that Pretti did not deserve lethal force and Babbit did, then you're nothing but a political hack and totally without any honesty or integrity at all.

Neither should have been shot because there was no imminent threat for serious bodily injury or death in either case.
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. An imminent threat is the measure

 

[Marener]

If a guy is sitting in his car and an officer ask him to keep his hands where he can see them. The guy proceeds to open his glovebox, where there is a visible gun, and reaches for it. Does the officer have to wait for the guy to pick up the gun and point it at him before he can shoot?

I am not condoning nor condemning the actions of the agents. Just trying to figure it out.

Cops can shoot people for basically any reason as long as they can convince a jury they were scared.

And since there’s hundreds of millions of guns in this country, everyone assumes everyone has a gun so everyone is afraid of everyone all the time.

This is America. Open season.

 

[OldFlame]

Ashli was leading a mob trying to get Congress members

Kill Mike Pence
Kill Pelosi

Congress members are no more sacrosanct than any other citizen, it's not like the laws that law enforcement officers have to use when determining if deadly force is legal only apply to regular citizens and people in political office are somehow Gods that get different rules.

Nothing in the situation with Babbit called for deadly force. You're in here arguing that deadly force was not warranted on a protestor that was in a physical altercation with law enforcement and had a loaded weapon on him, yet in the Babbit situation you're claiming it was warranted when she was in no altercation and had no weapon. The location is irrelevant. If you claim that Pretti did not deserve lethal force and Babbit did, then you're nothing but a political hack and totally without any honesty or integrity at all. But we already know that's true about you.

 

[SweetTea]

Cops can shoot people for basically any reason as long as they can convince a jury they were scared.

And since there’s hundreds of millions of guns in this country, everyone assumes everyone has a gun so everyone is afraid of everyone all the time.

This is America. Open season.

Yeah, that 2nd Amendment is real bugger isn't it?

 

[Marener]

Yeah, that 2nd Amendment is real bugger isn't it?

2nd amendment supporters want us to believe guns are supposed to make us feel safe, but to me it seems like the opposite is true.

 

[OldFlame]

He could have 20 guns but if his hands are empty you don’t shoot

Ashley Babbit's hands were empty.

 

[OldFlame]

Ashli was leading a mob trying to hurt a Congressman
Pretti was helping a woman off the ground

She wasn't 'leading' anything, and even if she was it doesn't justify deadly force. And you nor Byrd had any clue what her intent was let alone that her intent was to hurt anyone, and intent isn't justification for deadly force. Apparently, the cops in the same room with her saw her as no threat at all. There was no legal justification for Byrd to use deadly force. No one but political disingenuous hacks would claim the Pretti case wasn't a legal shoot while claiming that Babbit's was.

 

[Seymour Flops]

See, that's dishonest post right there. I'm not a member of the left. I'm an old school republican this is disgusted with what Trump has done to my party.

You mean the kind of Republican that constantly katowed to the left and, like democrats, were wholly owned by big pharma, the arms industry, health care insurance providers, and trial lawyers?

Those are actually worse than Democrats, because they take up a slot that could have gone to someone who would actually oppose Democrats.

Oh so now it's morphed from reaching into a pocket. A guy that had just been OC sprayed (multiple times) and was on the ground in a 4-5 officer scrum face down on his knees and/or belly (at different times) and was being beaten in the head by an officer with the officers OC spray can worried about trying to put his cell phone INTO his pocket.

Of course, because the officer had no way to know what was in the pocket. For all those things happening to him, his concern was making sure he kept his cell phone?

At what point did he stop struggling and comply with the officers?

Would it have been a good idea for him to stop struggling Sooner?

That's not very honest.
And yes, I looked at your post and didn't find it useful.

Of course, because it did not fit your narrative.

it clearly showed that the officer did not go after him. He went after the officer.

But you want useful? Here are two 2nd Amendment and self defense proponents analyizing the shoot.

WW
.
.
.
.

You like handing out assignments to other posters, don't you? If you give me a quick summary, I'll consider watching it.

Or you can tell me in your own words why you think it was a good idea for Pretti to bring a gun when he intended to fight police?

 

[WorldWatcher]

It depends.


Those are two different questions - were their actions smart and were their actions legal? I don't think that well trained SWAT team cops, would shoot a criminal in this situation. But, from the legal point of view, as much as I understand the legal regulations (I might be wrong, and you can prove it by showing actual ICE protocols), law enforcement officers can use lethal force from the start of attack and until the end of attack (i.e. the moment of surrender, end of resistance). And ICE agents are not SWAT. They have no task to capture criminals for interrogations or something. Their goal is (as far as I understand it) "to remove kebab". And they remove obstacles on the way to their goal.

Not quite, here in the US leathel force is only justified in cases of likely death or serious bodily injury.

Pretti had been OC sprayed multiple times, meaning he was blinded and in great pain. Then there were 4-5 officer in a scrum taking him face first to the ground and restraining him. His hands were visible to the officers at all times. From the start of the encounter through being shot 10 times, the only object in his right hand was his cell phone. His left hand was in front of him and on the ground.

At no time was there a case where Pretti had a firearm in his hands, make any motion to withdraw his firearm, or attempt to take a firearm from an officer.. The firearm was removed by an officer who exited the scrum and Pretti was shot after that officer left.

Because he was incapacitated by the OC spray, on the bottom of a multi-officer scrum, and never held or attempted to hold his firearm - there was no cause.

WW

 

[Zavulon]

No

ICE does not get to say….
There is an alien
Shoot anybody who gets in the way

Can you prove it by a quotation from the actual ICE documents?
Can you prove that in the ICE protocols actually present positive prohibition of fire during self-defense from a continuous armed attack, if bystanders believe that there were no more threat?

 

[OldFlame]

Not quite, here in the US leathel force is only justified in cases of likely death or serious bodily injury.

Pretti had been OC sprayed multiple times, meaning he was blinded and in great pain. Then there were 4-5 officer in a scrum taking him face first to the ground and restraining him. His hands were visible to the officers at all times. From the start of the encounter through being shot 10 times, the only object in his right hand was his cell phone. His left hand was in front of him and on the ground.

At no time was there a case where Pretti had a firearm in his hands, make any motion to withdraw his firearm, or attempt to take a firearm from an officer.. The firearm was removed by an officer who exited the scrum and Pretti was shot after that officer left.

Because he was incapacitated by the OC spray, on the bottom of a multi-officer scrum, and never held or attempted to hold his firearm - there was no cause.

WW

Another one that keeps proving that deadly force against Babbit was not called for, and that she was murdered. Thanks