Pretti Shooting my opinion as a member of US Lawfare

[XponentialChaos]

Agents have no way of knowing that.

They shot first and asked questions later.

 

[XponentialChaos]

It was assault again from your provided definition:

"Assault is generally defined as an intentional act that puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. No physical injury is required, but the actor must have intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the victim and the victim must have thereby been put in immediate apprehension of such a contact."

From the first push back off the streets and bumping chests with the officer, then coming back into the street and placing himself in a defensive blocking position, to then actually fighting with them while armed with a hidden gun.

Is all offensive contact WITH a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm.

All of that is assault???

Let’s start with the first one. “Getting pushed back off the streets”. How the hell is that considered assault?

 

[XponentialChaos]

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.

In Byrd’s situation, the police forces had been over-run by people intending to do harm, he was out-numbered, and they were trying to get to our elected officials.

In Pretti’s situation, Pretti was out-numbered. They had 7 or 8 officers on him, he had shown no intention to harm, and our elected officials aren’t in danger.

We’re not going to agree on this but I’m explaining what I see as key differences here.

Again, should our elected officials be defended by any means necessary? Or should we allow violent mobs through to them in the hopes that they don’t actually attack them?

 

[Zavulon]

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

At least policeman should believe that there is the case. I mean, a policeman can shoot a boy with a toy gun, if he points it on him, and he have no obligation to make distance expertise of the thing, that looks like a weapon. So, there is the issue of actual capabilities of the law enforcement officers to understand the situation and react according its changing. I mean 5 seconds for an average American (or "bellow the average") is not enough to really understand that there is no more actual threat. I mean, people rarely think in cold blood being under the armed assault on the hostile territory. They must recognise (and act immediately) two things - the start of attack (especially armed attack), and that's what happened, and the end of attack (and this attack didn't ended). They are not SWAT, trained to capture criminals.

Pretti had been OC sprayed multiple times, meaning he was blinded and in great pain.

But he didn't surrender. BTW, may be, law enforcement guys also got some their own spray, too.

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.

How could they know, that cell phone wasn't a detonator for the bomb?

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.

May be, their actions were uncoordinated, and it is pretty possible, because it was improvisation. Shit happens even with well trained teams.

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.

That's what you think after watching the video. I don't know what they actually thought being under suicidal attack of domestic terrorist on hostile territory.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

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?

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.

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

I've provided quick summaries

Quick summary:

• Pretti had been OC sprayed multiple times which leads to temporary blindness, involuntary eye closure (blepharospasm), severe burning sensations, coughing, and difficulty breathing,
• He was on the ground in a scrum being detained by 4-5 officers.
• At not time did he have a firearm in his hands.
• During the entire event he always had his cell phone in his right hand.
• While in the scrum he was face down on his belly or knees.
• An officer removed his firearm from his rear holster and exited the scrum.
• The first officer to discharge his firearm was behind Pretty and watched the officer take the firearm.
• After the removal of the firearm Pretti was shot.
• Officers fired at Pretti 10 times, continuing to fire when he was down and no threat.

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?

That is red herring fallacy question and has no bearing in the events of the day.

Pretti had a 1st Amendment right to protest (i.e. video DHS agents in public), he had a 2nd Amendment right to carry a firearm (he was a legal CC license holder), Minnesota is not a required to declare state meaning he was under no obligation to inform DHS agents he had a firearm unless specifically asked.

You have no clue as to why he carried a firearm that day, as a licensed CC individual he may have carried every day. You don't know and it's irrelevant to the events of that day.

WW

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I believe he should not have been shot.

I also believe he shouldn't have been doing what he was doing.

Beyond that, I believe that anybody who calls his actions mere "protest" share responsibility for his death since they are part of the process that encourages and emboldens those like him whose senseless need to virtue signal is downright pathological.

 

[rightwinger]

I believe he should not have been shot.

I also believe he shouldn't have been doing what he was doing.

Beyond that, I believe that anybody who calls his actions mere "protest" share responsibility for his death since they are part of the process that encourages and emboldens those like him whose senseless need to virtue signal is downright pathological.

AT the time he was taking video of ICE and stopped to help a woman pushed to the ground.
ICE immediately pepper sprayed him for it and proceeded to jump him.

 

[sartre play]

Here is reality. Those who want this kind of behavior to continue. Will find/ see what ever works for them.
HATE RULES.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

AT the time he was taking video of ICE and stopped to help a woman pushed to the ground.
ICE immediately pepper sprayed him for it and proceeded to jump him.

He was there to interfere, and his previous behavior proves such.

You lionize him for no other reason than you have been trained to do so.

 

[westwall]

They shot first and asked questions later.

Pretti ATTACKED first.

Dumbass.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I've provided quick summaries

Quick summary:

• Pretti had been OC sprayed multiple times which leads to temporary blindness, involuntary eye closure (blepharospasm), severe burning sensations, coughing, and difficulty breathing,

Yet he still had the energy to fight them. I wonder if he was drugged. He certainly had access to them at the VA hospital.

• He was on the ground in a scrum being detained by 4-5 officers.

Sounds like the perfect time to comply and avoid further injuries. why did he not do that?

• At not time did he have a firearm in his hands.

Correct.

He did have a firearm on his belt and he was reaching toward his right pocket before an unknown reason.

• During the entire event he always had his cell phone in his right hand.
• While in the scrum he was face down on his belly or knees.
• An officer removed his firearm from his rear holster and exited the scrum.

None of the officers had a bird's eye view to see everything that was happening, nor did they have a lot of time to process whatever they could see from their very limited vantage points.

officers work with imperfect information and life or death situations. Wouldn't the best idea be not to put them in such life or death situations involving yourself?

• The first officer to discharge his firearm was behind Pretty and watched the officer take the firearm.

He watched the officer take  A firearm. He had no way of knowing how many Pretti was carrying.

He heard the other officers yelling "gun gone gun" as they are trained to do when a violent attacker displays a firearm.

Pretti died of his own incredible stupidity in bringing a firearm to an event at which he planned to once again fight with police.

• After the removal of the firearm Pretti was shot.
• Officers fired at Pretti 10 times, continuing to fire when he was down and no threat.

I'm not sure that ten is the correct number, but i'm sure you can support that claim.

Of course.In a situation like that with a violent attacker armed with an unknown number of firearms, you are going to keep engaging until you are sure the threat is neutralized.

Again that is the situation that pretti. no officers went after Pretti. Pretti went after officers

That is red herring fallacy question and has no bearing in the events of the day.

Pretti had a 1st Amendment right to protest (i.e. video DHS agents in public), he had a 2nd Amendment right to carry a firearm (he was a legal CC license holder), Minnesota is not a required to declare state meaning he was under no obligation to inform DHS agents he had a firearm unless specifically asked.

Did he have the right to aggressively approach that ice officer and get into his face? Literally inches away from his face?

I think he watched too many movies about marine drill sergeants.

You have no clue as to why he carried a firearm that day, as a licensed CC individual he may have carried every day. You don't know and it's irrelevant to the events of that day.

WW

Displaying a firearm while fighting police officers is what got him killed that day.

 

[rightwinger]

He was there to interfere, and his previous behavior proves such.

You lionize him for no other reason than you have been trained to do so.

Doesn’t matter
He was recording on his phone not interferfering
He did stop ICE from beating the snot out of that woman so they beat him instead

 

[rightwinger]

Pretti ATTACKED first.

Dumbass.

What video did you watch?
Who did he attack?

 

[WorldWatcher]

He did have a firearm on his belt and he was reaching toward his right pocket before an unknown reason.

Well that is just false as the various videos show. At no time did he attempt to reach into a pocket (right or left).

Displaying a firearm while fighting police officers is what got him killed that day.

This is also false, he never displayed a firearm at any time during the event.

WW

 

[XponentialChaos]

Pretti ATTACKED first.

Dumbass.

Attacked? Where did you see him attack, grandpa?

 

[SweetTea]

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.

I feel much safer that I have guns because I recognize the fact that criminals exist. Even if we were able to disarm everyone, which is an impossible fantasy, a criminal with a knife can't be easily stopped by my 5'0 tall wife. She needs the great equalizer...a gun.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Well that is just false as the various videos show. At no time did he attempt to reach into a pocket (right or left).

He was reaching toward his right pocket. i showed you a still from your own video with his hand either right on his pocket or less than an inch away.

When you find yourself having to lie this much.It means that the truth does not support your position.

This is also false, he never displayed a firearm at any time during the event.

WW

Of course he did. How else would the officers have seen it?

These counterfactual arguments from you are getting silly.

Are you trolling at this point?

The gunman was either a complete idiot or his actions were suicide by cop.

 

[rightwinger]

I feel much safer that I have guns because I recognize the fact that criminals exist. Even if we were able to disarm everyone, which is an impossible fantasy, a criminal with a knife can't be easily stopped by my 5'0 tall wife. She needs the great equalizer...a gun.

Much like Pretti, that gun makes her more liable to be shot

 

[Seymour Flops]

Much like Pretti, that gun makes her more liable to be shot

You are the first Democrat on here to admit that it was a bad idea for Pretti to bring a gun when he intended to fight police!

Others have run away from that question like baby daddy's running from family court.

 

[WorldWatcher]

He was reaching toward his right pocket. i showed you a still from your own video with his hand either right on his pocket or less than an inch away.

No you didn't.

Pretti never reached into a pocket.

None of the videos show this action. There is one frame in the Pink Lady video where his right arm is obscured by his body (from the video frame of reference). But in one frame its visible, the next is obscured in the video, and the next frame it is visible again. Time elapse a fraction of a second. This in context while he is on the ground/knees being manhandled by multiple DHS agents.

Now during the entire context of the event, from the very beginning Pretti is holding his cell phone in his right hand. During the frames in question he is still holding his cell phone, his body obscures his arm, and when the arm a fraction of a second later is visible again it is STILL holding the cell phone.

You cannot "reach into pocket" holding a 6x3 cell phone, grab a pistol, while still holding the cell phone grab the pistol and then hold the pistol in a manner suitable for shooting. You would have to drop the cell phone, which Pretti never did.

When you find yourself having to lie this much.It means that the truth does not support your position.

Not lying, just not agreeing with your made up stuff based on one frame of a video.

You claim makes no logical sense to a reasonable person.

Of course he did. How else would the officers have seen it?

The officer saw the firearm (which Pretti never attempted to draw) during the scrum when Pretti coat got shifted up while on the ground.

These counterfactual arguments from you are getting silly.

My statements aren't counter factual, they are based on the videos.

Are you trolling at this point?

No, just I and the facts don't agree with your made up stuff.

The gunman was either a complete idiot or his actions were suicide by cop.

Possible. But that is a judgement call irrelevant to the facts available to a reasonable person. Law enforcement DOE NOT get to guess about motivations, they have to deal with the reality of what is in front of them.

The reality is that 4-5 officers had Pretti face down in a scrum and under control, an officer removed a discovered firearm and exited the scrum, the now unarmed Pretti was shot in the back.

..... ..... ..... 10 times.

WW