- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,483
- Reaction score
- 39,161
NY Times video analysis.
The law-and-order people.Let that sink in. ICE
FAILED TO COMPLY WITH 96 COURT ORDERS.
NINETY SIX.
![]()
If I thought they feared for their lives I would feel totally differently.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.
The possibility of second, unidentified, weapon makes me think that this logic would be the same as assuming, without evidence, that any person had an unseen weapon, and that the weapon was an immediate threat, and that therefore deadly force would be necessary to save lives.It’s reasonable to believe that the agents didn’t know that a firearm was in possession. I think Tricia’s friend makes a good point about the possibility of a second weapon, something I hadn’t thought about. I’m sure they’re trained for that.
That’s far more plausible than believing multiple agents deliberately set out to kill a protester for helping a woman. imo
How is this relevant to the events of this past weekend? CPB took him down, beat him and shot him in the back when he was not a threat. <modsnip>IMO Would Mr. Pretti have had continued employment with his current employer if this video was brought to their attention? Employers are permitted to take action on off duty conduct when it calls into question someone’s fitness for duty, particularly in roles involving vulnerable patients. Kicking , spitting at a LE vehicle and engaging in a physical confrontation with agents demonstrates a serious lapse in judgement and impulse control. We would see this again, amped up, a week later. IMO
![]()
Video shows Alex Pretti in scuffle with federal agents 11 days before his death
A newly released video shows Alex Pretti confronting federal officers on a Minneapolis street 11 days before he was fatally shot in another encounter with CBP agents, a Pretti family representative confirmed to CBS News.www.cbsnews.com
And AP was not the "instigator" of what happened at any point.When he "boils it down" to
actions of the armed instigator....
We are unfortunately, right back at the beginning.
There are reams and reams of accounts of how aggressive, painful and heartless ICe agents have been in all States,
so trying to believe they are "in fear" is very very hard. Before taking on Alex, these officers pushed two women down to the street and sprayed them with pepperspray. Nope. They were not in fear.
No way to answer that. And a mute point also, since he was shot dead in the back! If anything, Americans should demand a full review of how that fatal shooting of an American citizen went down, again.IMO Would Mr. Pretti have had continued employment with his current employer if this video was brought to their attention? Employers are permitted to take action on off duty conduct when it calls into question someone’s fitness for duty, particularly in roles involving vulnerable patients. Kicking , spitting at a LE vehicle and engaging in a physical confrontation with agents demonstrates a serious lapse in judgement and impulse control. We would see this again, amped up, a week later. IMO
![]()
Video shows Alex Pretti in scuffle with federal agents 11 days before his death
A newly released video shows Alex Pretti confronting federal officers on a Minneapolis street 11 days before he was fatally shot in another encounter with CBP agents, a Pretti family representative confirmed to CBS News.www.cbsnews.com
For how long will "Good Samaritans" exist in the US when they see what happens to people who go to the assistance of another person?And shoving two women to the ground........
oh, and how nice we still have "Good Samaritans"
I think this is really well said.Tricia, thank you for this question. I will try not to take it on a hay ride : )
IMO ONLY From LE perspective, these encounters are becoming more dangerous because many misunderstand where the legal lines are. There's widespread belief that as long as no physical contact happens, nothing unlawful is happening. This is getting people injured and killed.
Assault does not require physical contact. What matters is whether someone’s actions create a reasonable fear of imminent harm. When people deliberately close distance, step into an agents path, or force a moment where the agent must stop, or push through, that behavior is no longer passive protest. It is perceived as obstruction and a safety risk to the agent.
Agents aren’t evaluating these moments in slow motion or with the benefit of replay. They are assessing intent, proximity, movement, and threat in real time, often with shouting, bizarre whistles blowing non stop, frozen water bottles being thrown at them, car horns honking nonstop, crowd pressure, and limited visibility. When someone engineers a confrontation through movement, the agent must make a split-second decision based on safety, not speculation about motives.
There is no right to physically obstruct a federal agent performing official duties. To me Mr. Pretti was obstructing. From the agent’s standpoint, being blocked, crowded, or forced into unavoidable contact is a legitimate safety concern, not a political disagreement.
A struggle was clearly underway, someone yelled “gun,” and at least one firearm was involved, which would reasonably heighten fear in a fast-moving, chaotic encounter. From the agents POV it’s possible they did not know whether a weapon had already been secured or whether the person had another weapon. What did the agent(s) reasonably perceive at the time? I suspect we are going to hear this was not one (singular) agent that fired reportedly 10 times, but more than one. I believe this all went down in four seconds. IMO
Perhaps they should stand back from the deceased individual, once it's ascertained that they are beyond assistance, and call local police to deal with the body and do forensics and let them collect evidence from the body? This kind of separation from the person who one of their officers has shot would be best for them to avoid the kind of accusations that are being made, and it might be a bit easier for the families of individuals killed in these circumstances?now now I am sure they were just investigating the crime scene. the crime being homicide JMO
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.
Let that sink in. ICE
FAILED TO COMPLY WITH 96 COURT ORDERS.
NINETY SIX.
![]()