Federal troops kill a man because he carried a concealed gun.

Jarod said:
You are making out a legal defense for the shooter, I’m saying that what happened should not have happened. He was shot in the back, while kneeling on the ground, with his hands being held up by his head by other agents, after the firearm had been removed from his rear of his pants.

In a courtroom what the reasonable agent would have believed is relevant.
Click to expand...
I am telling you the things that if we were investigating we would need to determine in order to understand the perspective of the "reasonable officer". It is relevant in the investigation as well. Pretending you can charge people if they do not meet the criteria of the law that applies is just inane, especially so for someone who is an attorney.

You went straight to "conviction" without even trying to understand the relevant law, how it applies, and asking the relevant questions that apply in such situations.
 
Nomad said:
:lies: :lies: :lies:

He did not insert himself into anything.

A fat, punk-ass fucking trump thug shoved a woman to the pavement from behind. Pretti tried to help her up like any gentleman/real man would do and the gang of thugs jumped him like the gangstas they are then killed him like the gangstas they are.

Period.
Click to expand...
Is that so, fuckface?
So, why was that dude there and armed? What reason did he have to be in the middle of all that?
Was it near his house?
Did he insert himself there and come armed? Those are the questions you should ask.
 
Matt Dillon said:
Is that so, fuckface?
So, why was that dude there and armed? What reason did he have to be in the middle of all that?
Was it near his house?
Did he insert himself there and come armed? Those are the questions you should ask.
Click to expand...
Because he is an American citizen who has First and Second Amendment rights.
 
Matt Dillon said:
That may be, but showing up to obstruct LEOs and fighting them is not.
Not saying just being armed while doing so warrants a death sentence, but it's pretty stupid.
Well, he's not going to prison now. :dunno:
Click to expand...
He was protecting a woman who was pushed. Not something he should have been killed for.
 
Keep in mind also that Pretti was UNLAWFULLY carrying his weapon, because he did not also have his license or his concealed carry permit on him, both of which are required in Minnesota.
 
volsrocks said:
Keep in mind also that Pretti was UNLAWFULLY carrying his weapon, because he did not also have his license or his concealed carry permit on him, both of which are required in Minnesota.
Click to expand...
Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old intensive care nurse, had a legal permit to carry a handgun. However, the circumstances surrounding his death raised questions about the circumstances of the shooting. Videos of the incident showed Pretti being pepper-sprayed and shot by federal agents, with some suggesting that the first shot was a negligent discharge from an agent's gun. Despite this, Pretti was legally licensed to carry a handgun and had no serious criminal history. The incident has sparked significant debate and controversy regarding the use of force by law enforcement and the rights of lawful gun owners.

Daily Mail+4
 
Damocles said:
I am telling you the things that if we were investigating we would need to determine in order to understand the perspective of the "reasonable officer". It is relevant in the investigation as well. Pretending you can charge people if they do not meet the criteria of the law that applies is just inane, especially so for someone who is an attorney.

You went straight to "conviction" without even trying to understand the relevant law, how it applies, and asking the relevant questions that apply in such situations.
Click to expand...
If you are a sworn prosecutor, and the laws are different everywhere, in Florida, except for capital crimes, all that was required was my signature.

If you want to talk about criminal law we can. What these men did was wrong.
 
Matt Dillon said:
Why in the fucking hell was he there and armed, you dumb bitch?
Click to expand...
Because he can be there and he legally had his gun as many americans do. You think we should start shooting all people outside with guns? Say goodbye to your fellow magats then.
 
Matt Dillon said:
Is that so, fuckface?
So, why was that dude there and armed? What reason did he have to be in the middle of all that?
Was it near his house?
Did he insert himself there and come armed? Those are the questions you should ask.
Click to expand...
Your attempt to spin his being there to legally observe and record their actions on video into something improper....

1000081115.jpg

He had every legal and constitutional right to be there.

The trump-stapo murdered him for nothing.
 
But but but the man had a gun and a mod behind him screaming to kill ICE. The Dems said it was OK to kill an unarmed woman because she had a mob behind her. So this shooting of an armed man that was fighting with Federal law enforcement must be OK.:dunno:
 
Matt Dillon said:
Why in the fucking hell was he there and armed, you dumb bitch?
Click to expand...
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), is a landmark Supreme Court case establishing that all law enforcement use-of-force claims must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard. It ruled that, regardless of an officer's intent, actions are judged by whether they were reasonable based on the situation, without using hindsight.
 
Matt Dillon said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1962783106470920610
View: https://x.com/DameScorpio/status/1962783106470920610?s=20
Click to expand...
750
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top