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

Damocles said:
I just watched the video for the first time. Literally just now. I was avoiding it until I gathered things to look for, learned what other folks were saying, then wanting to know if it met up with reality.

- The Agents approached Pretti. First Pretti walks towards them telling them to "leave her alone" and "I am not in traffic, you are" or something very close to that, but he walks to the side and the agents approach him.
- One of agents is just pushing everybody for no reason I can ascertain. I saw him push at least 3, including the woman in the backpack.
- They pull him off the woman he's trying to help and immediately go into trying to arrest him.
- The gun was absolutely concealed until they grabbed him and pulled at his jacket. When an agent spots the gun he shouts "gun" and grabs it and walks to the middle of the street and away.
- Agents hear "gun" and 3 agents grab guns. I hear nobody telling them that it is "clear" once they have disarmed the guy. However I also do not know if they normally would do that as a guy with one gun may have another. He would be treated as "potentially still armed".
- The first shot that goes off is not on camera, but once it goes at least 9 more follow.

My opinion: This was a clusterf*ck. Someone should lose their job for this mess. However I do not think any of them will face charges, they will be able to use "reasonable officer" thought he was "armed" and was a danger to their life or the lives of others.

I still think that de-escalation training needs to be a priority for these agents, if they plan to work in cities where they will meet this kind of protest they will need to maintain their cool.

That dude pushing everyone was definitively not de-escalating, and I cannot see any reason why he was doing this other than being poorly trained and angry.

End all: Someone should lose their job over this, and they need to spend waaaay more time in training if they are going to play in those cities where they are unwanted. All that being said, "reasonable officer" standard would end with a result that is unsatisfying as the agents would definitely assume he was still armed once they removed one gun... You cannot assume that is the only weapon, but you now know he was armed.
Click to expand...

Few things.

Do you not think the pepper spray point blank being emptied in to his face, plus the ICE officer bludgeoning him with the now empty can, while he was subdued and on the ground would not have an impact on a jury and the 'so called resistance' they argue he was doing on the ground?

It would be near impossible for a person being held down, and hit repeatedly in the head with a metal object to not fight to move and get away from the blows.

second, since you think there is zero difference in the 'reasonable person' standards for shooting between officers and civilians do you think if this was the same amount of guys jumping on a guy outside a bar and it playing out the exact same, they also would not be convicted?

BTW i am not saying this would end in conviction and said prior when the lady was shot in the face, these cases are always super tough to bring but the State MUST bring them or ICE, even if they lose in court or ICE will feel emboldened and untouchable. They must at least feel the fear they will be prosecuted and will face a jury.
 
Damocles said:
I just watched the video for the first time. Literally just now. I was avoiding it until I gathered things to look for, learned what other folks were saying, then wanting to know if it met up with reality.

- The Agents approached Pretti. First Pretti walks towards them telling them to "leave her alone" and "I am not in traffic, you are" or something very close to that, but he walks to the side and the agents approach him.
- One of agents is just pushing everybody for no reason I can ascertain. I saw him push at least 3, including the woman in the backpack.
- They pull him off the woman he's trying to help and immediately go into trying to arrest him.
- The gun was absolutely concealed until they grabbed him and pulled at his jacket. When an agent spots the gun he shouts "gun" and grabs it and walks to the middle of the street and away.
- Agents hear "gun" and 3 agents grab guns. I hear nobody telling them that it is "clear" once they have disarmed the guy. However I also do not know if they normally would do that as a guy with one gun may have another. He would be treated as "potentially still armed".
- The first shot that goes off is not on camera, but once it goes at least 9 more follow.

My opinion: This was a clusterf*ck. Someone should lose their job for this mess. However I do not think any of them will face charges, they will be able to use "reasonable officer" thought he was "armed" and was a danger to their life or the lives of others.

I still think that de-escalation training needs to be a priority for these agents, if they plan to work in cities where they will meet this kind of protest they will need to maintain their cool.

That dude pushing everyone was definitively not de-escalating, and I cannot see any reason why he was doing this other than being poorly trained and angry.

End all: Someone should lose their job over this, and they need to spend waaaay more time in training if they are going to play in those cities where they are unwanted. All that being said, "reasonable officer" standard would end with a result that is unsatisfying as the agents would definitely assume he was still armed once they removed one gun... You cannot assume that is the only weapon, but you now know he was armed.
Click to expand...
Did you watch the Liz Wheeler video that I posted. To me it looks like an accidental discharge of Pretti's Sig P320 may have started the agents shooting. Watch the gun closely it looks like smoke coming out of the barrel and the slide appears to move and the agent's arm seems to absorb the recoil. I would be interested on your opinion.

The Sig P320 has been known to have accidental discharges. You can send the gun back to Sig for modification. Recently a security guard threw his belt holster and Sig on a table it discharged and fatally shot him in the chest. His family sued Sig and won.
 
FastLane said:
Did you watch the Liz Wheeler video that I posted. To me it looks like an accidental discharge of Pretti's Sig P320 may have started the agents shooting. Watch the gun closely it looks like smoke coming out of the barrel and the slide appears to move and the agent's arm seems to absorb the recoil. I would be interested on your opinion.

The Sig P320 has been known to have accidental discharges. You can send the gun back to Sig for modification. Recently a security guard threw his belt holster and Sig on a table it discharged and fatally shot him in the chest. His family sued Sig and won.
Click to expand...
Say no to drugs, Ms. Fat Lame.

Let's follow your conspiracy theory to its conclusion; that the man in the gray jacket disarmed Pretti and accidentally fired it because he, like you, is a MAGA moron. That might explain one of the officers shooting Pretti with a double-tap. It doesn't explain the other 2-3 rounds, the pause in shooting and the firing of 4-5 more rounds by another officer.

I've already disproved your bullshit about the Sig. Your lies, your hatred for the American Republic and your desire to shred the Constitution is why I look forward to the day American patriots around you do something to silence your evil ways.
 
Damocles said:
Did I say that?
Click to expand...
No, but that’s my point about this whole situation.. you are not necessarily doing that, but many of the right wing idiots here are. @FastLane @TOP @Yakuda

The Trump administration keeps suggesting that because he had a gun, this was okay.

Idiots here keeps suggesting that it was OK to kill him because he did a dumb thing. The dumb thing being exercising his second amendment rights.
 
QP! said:
Few things.

Do you not think the pepper spray point blank being emptied in to his face, plus the ICE officer bludgeoning him with the now empty can, while he was subdued and on the ground would not have an impact on a jury and the 'so called resistance' they argue he was doing on the ground?

It would be near impossible for a person being held down, and hit repeatedly in the head with a metal object to not fight to move and get away from the blows.

second, since you think there is zero difference in the 'reasonable person' standards for shooting between officers and civilians do you think if this was the same amount of guys jumping on a guy outside a bar and it playing out the exact same, they also would not be convicted?

BTW i am not saying this would end in conviction and said prior when the lady was shot in the face, these cases are always super tough to bring but the State MUST bring them or ICE, even if they lose in court or ICE will feel emboldened and untouchable. They must at least feel the fear they will be prosecuted and will face a jury.
Click to expand...
I think the guy hitting him with the can would be part of the "whole scene" one must look at, as I said someone (if not multiple "someones") should lose their job over this, once another agent shouted "gun" changes a ton of things, and simply taking away a visible gun cannot be assumed to disarm him. Anyway, I just don't think you'd get a murder conviction on this considering the huge amount of leeway they give to officers on the "reasonable officer" standard.

I don't believe you'll see these guys facing that charge... I need to read more of the law regarding the lead up, let me do that so that I can provide a better informed opinion.
 
Jarod said:
No, but that’s my point about this whole situation.. you are not necessarily doing that, but many of the right wing idiots here are. @FastLane @TOP @Yakuda

The Trump administration keeps suggesting that because he had a gun, this was okay.

Idiots here keeps suggesting that it was OK to kill him because he did a dumb thing. The dumb thing being exercising his second amendment rights.
Click to expand...
I think they are saying that doing dumb things can win you horrible prizes. However, I will say that the agents were effectively practicing zero de-escalation and that's a recipe for disaster as we've seen. I think Homan will bring some sanity back to this, surprisingly. I do not know if they will bring the agents up on any charges though I think rights violations could be brought I do not think murder would work out.
 
Damocles said:
I think they are saying that doing dumb things can win you horrible prizes. However, I will say that the agents were effectively practicing zero de-escalation and that's a recipe for disaster as we've seen. I think Homan will bring some sanity back to this, surprisingly. I do not know if they will bring the agents up on any charges though I think rights violations could be brought I do not think murder would work out.
Click to expand...
They are victim blaming in an attempt to take any responsibility off the aggressors.

Very hard, but possible, to bring rights violations against federal agents.
 
Damocles said:
I think the guy hitting him with the can would be part of the "whole scene" one must look at, as I said someone (if not multiple "someones") should lose their job over this, once another agent shouted "gun" changes a ton of things, and simply taking away a visible gun cannot be assumed to disarm him. Anyway, I just don't think you'd get a murder conviction on this considering the huge amount of leeway they give to officers on the "reasonable officer" standard.

I don't believe you'll see these guys facing that charge... I need to read more of the law regarding the lead up, let me do that so that I can provide a better informed opinion.
Click to expand...

I think, that if he was fighting the ICE officers piled on him as much as he could, which can be a reasonable and predictable response to a crush of bodies on you, and feeling trapped and smothered and the pain that can cause, then a jury might be more inclined to believe an officer could perceive serious risk.

However i think that officer defense will be perceived with a lot less believability, by a jury, when they see first an officer empty his pepper spray can, point blank, into his face when he has not done a single thing yet, get gang tackled, and then while on the ground and not yet trying to get back up, is being bludgeoned by the empty can in repeated viscous blows to the head.

I think a jury could be convinced, even in these very tough cases, that the ICE officers created the very situation which they then say 'we were scared and had to execute him'.
 
Jarod said:
They are victim blaming in an attempt to take any responsibility off the aggressors.

Very hard, but possible, to bring rights violations against federal agents.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Now they are victim blaming Omar for the attack on her. This is more evidence of MAGAt evil and why all American patriots should rise up and put them down.

Remember their names, find out and distribute their addresses, let their neighbors do what is necessary to protect our Republic and our Constitution.

pastandsup.org

Do Not Obey In Advance - PA Stands Up

No matter how hard he tries, Donald Trump is a president, not a king. The billionaire ridden Trump administration is intentionally overwhelming us. With more than 200+ executive orders, court cases, and PR stunts, their goal is to make working people so overwhelmed, exhausted, and distracted...
pastandsup.org pastandsup.org
IMG_8223-2.jpeg
 
QP! said:
I think, that if he was fighting the ICE officers piled on him as much as he could, which can be a reasonable and predictable response to a crush of bodies on you, and feeling trapped and smothered and the pain that can cause, then a jury might be more inclined to believe an officer could perceive serious risk.

However i think that officer defense will be perceived with a lot less believability, by a jury, when they see first an officer empty his pepper spray can, point blank, into his face when he has not done a single thing yet, get gang tackled, and then while on the ground and not yet trying to get back up, is being bludgeoned by the empty can in repeated viscous blows to the head.

I think a jury could be convinced, even in these very tough cases, that the ICE officers created the very situation which they then say 'we were scared and had to execute him'.
Click to expand...
You say "will be"... I do not believe that there will be charges to this effect.
 
Damocles said:
You say "will be"... I do not believe that there will be charges to this effect.
Click to expand...
my post was based on an hypothetical of it being brought to a court, which of course we can also present the opposite hypothetical.

And in the hypothetical i present, i think, if brought, those factors "will be" greatly mitigating to the defense argument 'he was fighting back and trying to get up.. and we feared for our lives and had to execute him'.

The prosecution could show that any reasonable person, having a can of pepper spray emptied point blank into their face, and being gang tackled and then while on the ground and not fighting back, is getting bludgeoned by the empty can with viscous shots to the head, will squirm and try and escape those blows.

A defense of 'we had to kill the guy squirming and trying to escape the blow we were delivering as we perceived his resistance as a threat' will be far less effective in this case, then it typically would be for that reason.

If not, then all cops can just start beating anyone they are resisting until the person starts to try and escape the beating and then shooting them 'out of fear'.
 
Damocles said:
You say "will be"... I do not believe that there will be charges to this effect.
Click to expand...
Certainly not by the Trump administration, but there's no statute of limitations on murder.

Additionally, there's the factor of becoming social pariahs and doxxing in the digital age. It's only a matter of time before the names of the guilty are released. Although I think Zimmerman was stupid, I also believe he got a bad rap. Rittenhouse was a patsy who appears to have been set up to become the cute, chubby white boy version of George Floyd but turned out to be stronger than his militia believed him to be.

Even so, both are social pariahs. As Trump often seeks to do with his heated rhetoric against Muslims, African-Americans, foreigners, etc, all it takes is for one person to act against someone leaders are claiming is vermin who should be eliminated

The attack on Omar and Trump's immediate response, along with the response of several of your JPP MAGAt friends is an example of this behavior and it's results.

Both Zimmerman and, to an extent, Rittenhouse are laying low for these reasons. Is there any doubt that Ross and his fellow federal murderous thugs will have to do likewise? Their lives, long or short, will never be the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QP!
Jarod said:
No, but that’s my point about this whole situation.. you are not necessarily doing that, but many of the right wing idiots here are. @FastLane @TOP @Yakuda

The Trump administration keeps suggesting that because he had a gun, this was okay.

Idiots here keeps suggesting that it was OK to kill him because he did a dumb thing. The dumb thing being exercising his second amendment rights.
Click to expand...

Spend some time on gun laws and interfering with a federal officer.
Never mind, get back to the phone bank.
 
Lionfish said:
Spend some time on gun laws and interfering with a federal officer.
Never mind, get back to the phone bank.
Click to expand...
Those "federal officers" broke the law by assaulting a woman.

They are now murderers and both them and their supporters should face the wrath of American patriots.

Do you advertise in public that you are a MAGAt, Legina, or are you a closet MAGAt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top