Pretti Shooting my opinion as a member of US Lawfare

Big words don't make you smart.

we all saw ICE and CBP shoot Good and Pretti in cold blood.

That's all the "evidence" I need.

Just remember, there's no statute of limitations on murder.
Pretti and Good were threats to law enforcement. You ignored that so your shot in cold blood theory is just that. When you are ignoring all relative evidence to shape an agenda, it is no longer a scientific conversation.
 
Pretti and Good were threats to law enforcement.

No, they weren't.

You ignored that so your shot in cold blood theory is just that.

No, both incidents were created by ICE/CBP. ICE could have driven around Good without confronting her. CBP could have not pushed that woman and then Pretti to the ground.

Real cops are taught de-escalation tactics

When you are ignoring all relative evidence to shape an agenda, it is no longer a scientific conversation.

1770641916755.webp
 
No, they weren't.



No, both incidents were created by ICE/CBP. ICE could have driven around Good without confronting her. CBP could have not pushed that woman and then Pretti to the ground.

Real cops are taught de-escalation tactics



View attachment 1217094
Good used her car to drive at a law enforcement officer with the audible of her wife saying “drive baby, drive!” and Pretti brought a gun to a protest days after he personally assaulted an ICE vehicle.

How were they NOT threats based on these facts?
 
Pretti and Good were threats to law enforcement. You ignored that so your shot in cold blood theory is just that. When you are ignoring all relative evidence to shape an agenda, it is no longer a scientific conversation.
Goode was lawfully shot Pretti was not. She created an imminent threat Pretti was helpless when shot
 
Good used her car to drive at a law enforcement officer with the audible of her wife saying “drive baby, drive!” and Pretti brought a gun to a protest days after he personally assaulted an ICE vehicle.

How were they NOT threats based on these facts?

Those aren't facts, they are your opinion.

Empirical data contained in the videos show that:

#1 Good did not use her car to "drive at law enforcement", video from the rear and Officer Ross's own video - showed that she had hard cranked the wheels to exit the area not "drive at" law enforcement.

#2 That Good was shot in the head by Officer Ross through the driver side window meaning that for the 2nd & 3rd shots he was beside the vehicle not in front of it.

#3 Good parked perpendicular and I don't excuse that. However the street was one-way, had 3 lanes for traffic, and additional parking space allong the sides. While her parking was a local traffic violation (outside the jurisdiction of Federal DHS Agents), it was not obstruction as the videos show there was plenty of room to simply drive around her vehicle. As a matter of fact Officer Ross did just that, driving around her vehicle, then stopping on the other side, exiting his vehicle, then engaging with her.

#4 Pretti was licensed to CC carry, it is not illegal to carry at a protest. The ability to protest is proteected by the 1st Amendment and to legally carry a firearm under the 2nd Amendment.

#5 During the entire time video shows that Pretti NEVER reached for, brandished, or displayed his weapon. The entire time it remained on his back waste band holster. It was discovered by law enforcemnet only AFTER they choose to engage him, OC spray him, and take him to the ground with 4-5 officer scrum. Empirical data shows that the officer that fired the first shot into Pretti's back watched the officer remove the firearm and exit the scrum. Red arrow is the first officer to fire, blue arrow is the officer that removed the firearm from the holster and exited the scrum.

#6 Video shows that entire time, Pretti had his cell phone in his hand.

#7 Video shows that Pretti did not assault DHS Agents, it was the agents that initiated violence.

#8 I'm listing it here, but this is just my opinion. I BELIEVE that the officer in the black mask fired the first shot. Video shows his arm recoiling slightly at the time the shot was fired and video from another persective shows - IMHO - that Pretti's gun didn't discharge because of the way the blue arrow officer reacted. This opinion is subject to change if we get a ballistics report on Pretti's firearm, the case matching the discharge recovered and matched, and a crime scene photo showing the divot/damage to the road surface.

WW

1770643396408.webp
 
Last edited:
Goode was lawfully shot Pretti was not. She created an imminent threat Pretti was helpless when shot

I think this attorney does a decent job of presenting both sides of the legal arguments in the Pretti shooting.

WW
.
.
.
 
Good used her car to drive at a law enforcement officer with the audible of her wife saying “drive baby, drive!”

You mean after the officer directly walked in front of her car, and fired bullets at a moving vehicle from the side in violation of ICE's own policies.

and Pretti brought a gun to a protest days after he personally assaulted an ICE vehicle.

Second Amendment, he has every right to have a gun

How were they NOT threats based on these facts?
World Watcher took that apart better than I could have, but these situations were escalated by ICE and didn't need to happen.
 
Those aren't facts, they are your opinion.

Empirical data contained in the videos show that:

#1 Good did not use her car to "drive at law enforcement", video from the rear and Officer Ross's own video showing her - showed that she had hard cranked the wheels to exit the eara not "drive at" law enforcement.

#2 That Good was shot in the head by Officer Ross through the driver side window meaning that for the 2nd & 3rd shots he was beside the vehicle not in front of it.

#3 Good parked perpendicular and I don't excuse that. However the street was one-way, had 3 lanes for traffic, and additional parking space allong the sides. While her parking was a local traffic violation (outside the jurisdiction of Federal DHS Agents), it was no obstruction as the videos show there was plenty of room to simply drive around her vehicle. As a matter of fact Officer Ross did just that, driving around her vehicle, then stopping on the other side, exiting his vehicle, then engaging with her.

#4 Pretti was licensed to CC carry, it is not illegal to carry at a protest. The ability to protest is proteected by the 1st Amendment and to legally carry a firearm under the 2nd Amendment.

#5 During the entire time video shows that Pretti NEVER reached for, brandished, or displayed his weapon. The entire time it remained on his back waste band holster. It was discovered by law enforcemnet only AFTER they choose to engage him, OC spray him, and take him to the ground with 4-5 officer scrum.

#6 Video shows that entire time, Pretti had his cell phone in his hand.

#7 Video shows that Pretti did not assault DHS Agents, it was the agents that initiated violence.

WW
Goode was obstructing justice resisting arrest and drove her car to escape striking an agent as the video shows. Using a 4000 pound car to escape puts all agents in the area at risk which creates an imminent threat fir serious bodily harm or death. This meets the legal standard for use of deadly force. All she had to do was stop but she chose to step on the gas.

Preti was violent and emotionally disturbed but never created an imminent threat. He was disarmed and helpless when shot. This dies not meet the deadly force standard. Pretti did assault an agent by placing his hands on him.

Both cases are examples of what happens when democrats use hate speech to turn emotionally unstable people into political vigilantes. They become cannon fodder for the left.
 
This is better analysis


I've seen his also.

The one you provided analyses the shooting very well.

The one I just provided was from an attorney that examined the case both for and against court proceedings (criminal and/or civil).

Just different perspectives.

WW
 
I've seen his also.

The one you provided analyses the shooting very well.

The one I just provided was from an attorney that examined the case both for and against court proceedings (criminal and/or civil).

Just different perspectives.

WW
The legal test is a reasonable man must believe a serious threat to bodily harm or death is imminent. Going to happen right now
 
He was not armed when shot making the shooting unlawful
His hands were near his waist.

They had no idea how many weapons he had on him, and couldn’t possibly known he was fully disarmed, even if they were aware one gun had been taken off him.

They don’t have x-ray vision you know.
 
His hands were near his waist.

They had no idea how many weapons he had on him, and couldn’t possibly known he was fully disarmed, even if they were aware one gun had been taken off him.

They don’t have x-ray vision you know.
He was helpless and must make a furtive movement to be shot. That never happened. He was on his knees facing away. He was turtled on the ground hands down by his head. There is no he might have another weapon. You must be certain or he makes grab for it. That never happened. Unlawful use of deadly force.
 
His hands were near his waist.

They had no idea how many weapons he had on him, and couldn’t possibly known he was fully disarmed, even if they were aware one gun had been taken off him.

They don’t have x-ray vision you know.

Capt. Byrd agrees.

WW
 
He was helpless and must make a furtive movement to be shot. That never happened. He was on his knees facing away. He was turtled on the ground hands down by his head. There is no he might have another weapon. You must be certain or he makes grab for it. That never happened. Unlawful use of deadly force.
He was not “helpless” he was violent and non-compliant. He didn’t have his hands out and visible.

I’m not saying he deserved to get shot, but the cops likely had a “reasonable” fear for their life, which means they are protected by the law.
 
He was not “helpless” he was violent and non-compliant. He didn’t have his hands out and visible.

I’m not saying he deserved to get shot, but the cops likely had a “reasonable” fear for their life, which means they are protected by the law.

He was OC Sprayed in the face twice, he was blind and in severe pain due to the chemical irritant on his skin, in his eyes, in his nose, and in his mouth.

He was on the bottom of a 4-5 officer scrum that had him facing the pavement on his knees and/or belly (at different time).

His hand WERE OUT and visible at all times, he neve reached for his firearm and during the entire event he had his phone in his hand (well until he was shot).

He was shot in the back by the officer in the black mask after that officer watched the officer in the gray coat remove the firearm and leave the scrum.

WW
 
15th post
He was not “helpless” he was violent and non-compliant. He didn’t have his hands out and visible.

I’m not saying he deserved to get shot, but the cops likely had a “reasonable” fear for their life, which means they are protected by the law.
You havet watched the right video youre wrong on every point
 
Back
Top Bottom