- Joined
- Nov 18, 2022
- Messages
- 272
- Reaction score
- 4,277
From everyone but the President, apparently, given his remarks yesterday.I am certainly happy to see the massive increase in support of the Second Amendment.
From everyone but the President, apparently, given his remarks yesterday.I am certainly happy to see the massive increase in support of the Second Amendment.
How would that explain TEN shots?Hey Everyone,
A friend of mine shared his thoughts with me and gave me permission to post them here. His perspective is different from what most people in this thread believe
I’m posting this because I think it’s important to understand how people think who strongly disagree with each other. I’d like to hear your responses to his views and how you would address his arguments.
As always, please respond respectfully and thoughtfully. This is a good opportunity to show that people can disagree passionately and still have a productive, civil conversation.
From my friend
I think that any LE officer in this situation could have felt threatened by this guy's movements. He is clearly resisting the officers and reaching for something. Did someone shout "gun" at some point? If so it would heighten the fear among the officers. Did the officers who fired at him know that another officer had taken a weapon from him? I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't from watching that confusing struggle. Does taking a single weapon during the struggle mean he doesn't have another weapon that could be used to kill? Of course not
So it's boils down to did the actions of the armed instigator cause these officers to fear for their lives or the safety of others. If it did then the shooting is legally justified
I wonder if you think it's possible the officers in this case really did fear for their safety during this encounter with the armed protester.
Tricia again. I would love to see your replies to my friend's message.
So these are all reasonabble requests IMOSenator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, emerged from a closed party meeting on Wednesday and laid out Democrats’ demands for new restrictions on federal immigration officers. In broad terms, they want roving immigration patrols to end. They also want to see agents observe conventional law enforcement standards on use of force and an end to federal officers’ wearing masks, with an additional requirement that they always carry proper identification.
![]()
Minnesota Live Updates: Federal Agents Involved in Deadly Minneapolis Shooting Now on Leave, DHS Says
The disclosure came as the administration’s handling of the shooting continued to draw criticism. U.S. Capitol Police were also investigating an attack on Representative Ilhan Omar.www.nytimes.com
Schumer said this afternoon that federal immigration agents must lose their masks, wear body cameras, observe the same use of force rules as local police, and be subject to tighter rules requiring search warrants and an end to roving patrols, as he outlined conditions that his party is seeking to extend government funding beyond Saturday’s deadline.Let me be clear: Democrats stand ready today to pass the five bipartisan bills in the Senate, but the DHS bill needs serious work. It’s now on Leader [John] Thune to separate out the DHS bill, just as Speaker [Mike] Johnson did in the House, and start working with Democrats to rein in ice, imposing oversight, accountability and empowering local law enforcement in our communities.
The Senate is scheduled to take the first procedural vote on a funding package including DHS funding tomorrow.
Let me be clear: Until ICE is properly reined in and overhauled, the DHS funding bill won’t have the votes to pass the Senate.
Our number one goal is — these are three policy areas we think must be done. What we want to do is negotiate with the Republicans and come up with a proposal that, again, reins in ice and ends the violence.
Isn't it great? I have always been MASSIVELY committed Bill of Rights. The fight for the Bill of Rights during the ratification process of the Constitution is one of my favorite times to study in history. Any attention brought to the amendments, I encourage.I am certainly happy to see the massive increase in support of the Second Amendment.
Your perceived support in the Second Amendment is for equality for all under the Constitution, not the Second Amendment per se. IMOI am certainly happy to see the massive increase in support of the Second Amendment.
Yikes, we call the above making-it-up-as-we-go-along.IMO, no LE agency, by sideline request default, let's random, unvetted civilians into an active crime scene, especially right after a shooting. That's scene security, not misconduct. You don't hand control of a volatile scene to unknown people. I suspect you wouldn't like tasers being deployed either, and masks off, with your name badge with ID # idea on doesn't turn live operations into meet-and-greets. IMO
Daughter of a German mother here. Yes, she was on the wrong side when she was a teen, but she told me what the Nazi propaganda was like. It even included books German children were given about how dangerous and evil Jewish people were. Reminds me of how immigrants of colour are being portrayed by the current administration in the USA. Just my opinion. PS. She was always grateful that she was accepted by Canada as a young adult after the war. Many Germans on the ship did not trust that they would be welcomed, so they threw all pictures of home and family overboard into the ocean. Her Dad trusted the promise that they would be accepted. He had not fought in the war and my uncle at age 16 was doing what he was told, throwing bodies of the dead in Vienna, Austria onto a wagon and throwing them into a ditch outside the city. Family pictures and artifacts were kept. Mom loved Canada. PS 2 I'm very proud of my German grandpa. He did not fall for the Nazi propaganda about Jews. In fact, when there were still Jewish farmers in rural areas outside of Lintz, Austria he would drive out there by horse and wagon to trade the homebrew he made for milk and cheese from them. Mom went along to distract and charm the soldiers at the checkpoints. Grandpa would say he knew a farmer who was a relative. He once said to Mom "War makes men into animals" as he had fought in WW1 as an 18 yr old.It is not offensive to me, it is a warning and heartbreakingly so. Not even that much of a warning, it is too very close to being the same to non white, white appearing people. (((( ))))
The two Border Patrol agents who fired their guns during Alex Pretti’s fatal shooting in Minnesota have been placed on administrative leave, according to Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin.
Minneapolis live updates: Two Border Patrol agents who fired their guns in Alex Pretti’s fatal shooting have been put on leave
I also wanted to add onto this (because 10 shots just makes it completely unexplainable and inexcusable to me) The officer that pulls the gun off of Alex and the officer that started shooting him are literally standing right next to each other. They are both at Alex’s hip, as he’s bent over on the ground (his butt is in the air). They know Alex is bent over and that there are several other agents wrestling him around his head/torso. The officer who fired first was literally watching the other officer pull a gun off of him, and starts shooting him within 2-3 seconds of that happening. These officers are literally directly next to each other, the officer who shot had to have seen Alex being unarmed by the officer in the green hoodie, there’s really no way he didn’t, IMO.How would that explain TEN shots?
jmo
Can you explain what you mean? The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution. It is a right of the People, not the government as has been argued by so many.Your perceived support in the Second Amendment is for equality for all under the Constitution, not the Second Amendment per se. IMO
But I'm sure you are aware of that.
For me, the ten shots explain it. More than one agent fired, which suggests that multiple agents perceived a threat. In that chaos, a shout that he had a gun would have triggered an immediate reaction. imoHow would that explain TEN shots?
jmo
It's an amendment to the Contitution, not part of the Constitition. It's true the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were ratified at the same time, thanks to the Anti-Federalists who thought the Constitution gave too much power to the Federal government and wanted protection against that.Can you explain what you mean? The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution. It is a right of the People, not the government as has been argued by so many.
Thank you.Hey Everyone,
A friend of mine shared his thoughts with me and gave me permission to post them here. His perspective is different from what most people in this thread believe
I’m posting this because I think it’s important to understand how people think who strongly disagree with each other. I’d like to hear your responses to his views and how you would address his arguments.
As always, please respond respectfully and thoughtfully. This is a good opportunity to show that people can disagree passionately and still have a productive, civil conversation.
From my friend
I think that any LE officer in this situation could have felt threatened by this guy's movements. He is clearly resisting the officers and reaching for something. Did someone shout "gun" at some point? If so it would heighten the fear among the officers. Did the officers who fired at him know that another officer had taken a weapon from him? I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't from watching that confusing struggle. Does taking a single weapon during the struggle mean he doesn't have another weapon that could be used to kill? Of course not
So it's boils down to did the actions of the armed instigator cause these officers to fear for their lives or the safety of others. If it did then the shooting is legally justified
I wonder if you think it's possible the officers in this case really did fear for their safety during this encounter with the armed protester.
Tricia again. I would love to see your replies to my friend's message.
TEN times? Into a man on the ground? With the gun in possession of an agent? With people in the near vicinity who could've been hit?For me, the ten shots explain it. More than one agent fired, which suggests that multiple agents perceived a threat. In that chaos, a shout that he had a gun would have triggered an immediate reaction. imo
I would first ask my friend to show me where AP is "clearly resisting the officer and reaching for something" in one of the many angles of video that captured the moments just prior to and the shooting. Was it when he was stumbling as he was being forcefully shoved backwards? Was it when his face was full of pepper spray as he tried to ward some of that off with his raised open left hand and a cell phone is his right? Was it when he was bending to try to pull the woman next to him off the ground where she had just been shoved hard by an agent?Hey Everyone,
A friend of mine shared his thoughts with me and gave me permission to post them here. His perspective is different from what most people in this thread believe
I’m posting this because I think it’s important to understand how people think who strongly disagree with each other. I’d like to hear your responses to his views and how you would address his arguments.
As always, please respond respectfully and thoughtfully. This is a good opportunity to show that people can disagree passionately and still have a productive, civil conversation.
From my friend
I think that any LE officer in this situation could have felt threatened by this guy's movements. He is clearly resisting the officers and reaching for something. Did someone shout "gun" at some point? If so it would heighten the fear among the officers. Did the officers who fired at him know that another officer had taken a weapon from him? I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't from watching that confusing struggle. Does taking a single weapon during the struggle mean he doesn't have another weapon that could be used to kill? Of course not
So it's boils down to did the actions of the armed instigator cause these officers to fear for their lives or the safety of others. If it did then the shooting is legally justified
I wonder if you think it's possible the officers in this case really did fear for their safety during this encounter with the armed protester.
Tricia again. I would love to see your replies to my friend's message.
Moo...yes that was really strange to watch. They are just stuffing stuff in their pockets. Is that allowed? He is obviously dead it is not like he can hide anything.