There are certain cliches that I regard as an instant forfeit in an argument, and "He didn't deserve to be executed!" is one of them.
The speaker is conceding that his person did something wrong, but selfishly demanding that the interaction be litigated solely in terms of the perspective and interests of his person, and "execution" is always a very dishonest description of the outcome.
One doesn't utter that cliche if he has a defensible case.
Does the person who actually dies "deserve to die" more than the many who escape unharmed?
Once again, these mind games are being played to imply that a person has been wronged without actually making that case at all. I abhor that sort of dishonesty.
If a person runs a red light and dies in a car crash as a result, that is very different from being killed by an ICE enforcement officer. It's not even like if they ran a red light, got pulled over, got belligerent with the cop, then got shot, because we can all agree that running a red light is dangerous and should not be normalized, so cops should absolutely ticket you for that, but it is highly controversial to suggest that ICE enforcement officers are performing any sort of valuable service to the community or that they are actually the same sort of thing as cops.
Attacking a federal agent is very much like running a red light in that it's quite dangerous and should not be normalized. You seemed to realize that in the middle of your own post, so you quickly turned tail and wrote a weasel-worded shibboleth to bail yourself out of your own reasoning.
No, it's not, in that the ethics of the two situations are completely different, and that's what the "he didn't deserve to die" line is getting that. Depending on what the federal government is up to, it could be ethical to murder all federal agents. Could be reckless to engage in random aggression (not entirely sure this happened, but I don't think it matters either) against federal agents (I think some would call it heroic, depending, in this instance I think it was reckless), sure, and that's the commonality, but it's the ethics that make it completely different and disanalogous. To be clear, I don't think we're currently at the point where it would make sense to try to take out the federal government, but I think a lot of people (myself included) feel the current administration is basically illegitimate and its acts don't actually go under the "law and order" umbrella, agents that are implementing its agenda don't actually merit the deference typically afforded to LEOs.
If you truly think that the current administration is illegitimate, I guess my first question would be if you thought this same way about the COVID-era Biden administration? This would give me a good idea of whether you're working from a definable ethical framework, or if it's just more 'I Support the Current Thing'...
So because you "feel the current administration is basically illegitimate", that gives you and whoever else the right to interfere or obstruct with federal immigration officers?
I wouldn't put your theory into practice, just saying
By the description I'd be in both camps. Rights and practicality are far from mutually exclusive, but Anon Longly basically has all this down in the same way I would.
You can protest while armed. You can film cops while armed. You probably even should.
I certainly wouldn't step foot outside in Minnesota in today's political climate without extra ammo, because I never know if I might get mistaken for ICE because I'm white and have short hair and harassed/assaulted by a mob of 30 useful idiots.
As a responsible armed citizen the best thing you can do when a peaceful protest (There's another argument here that is for another discussion) looks like it's about to get less peaceful is to GTFO.
You can't go hands with any armed law enforcement while also armed and be surprised if you come out of it without all your vital fluids.
Pretti made a fundamental, basic mistake of conduct while armed and the predictable thing happened.
Did the immigration/customs officers also make mistakes? Sure. Shoving that woman so hard she ended up on the ground on the sidewalk looks good exactly nowhere. I get it, I understand it, but you can't be doing that now. That, plus Pretti getting similarly shoved off the street (though not so that he ended up on the ground) probably ticked him over from "Intelligent human" to "raging sacrifice" because he couldn't leave his ego at home. (another thing they drum into you at concealed carry license classes)
I've been called a bootlicker for pointing out this simple fact about a dozen times so far.
You seem to be conflating “should be able to” with “should”.
There is no reason to carry a gun to a protest against law enforcement unless you plan on killing law enforcement. What is your gun going to accomplish?
If it's actually a 1st amendment protected protest (certainly arguable in this case) then, quite simply, you'd carry because you always carry and there's no reason to disarm just because you're exercising another primary right.
Carrying a gun to an organized disruption operation on the other hand...
Horseshit. I carry a gun every waking moment because I never know when I'll need it. Maybe it's at my destination. Maybe it's somewhere along the way between home and there. And when I arrive at my destination, I am loathe to leave a gun in the car. That's how guns get stolen and put into the hands of criminals. Or in this case of "demonstrations", senselessly burned along with the vehicle. Not that I go to such things. I have no interest in yelling in the streets, carrying signs, or freezing my ass off. You go right ahead, you can have all of mine, hell take my lifetime allotment!
And I'll tell you something else: going to protests in general seems like a waste of time. Going to protests against law enforcement seems like an indictment of one's character. No thanks, none for me. Law and order seems one hell of a lot better to me than any of the alleged "freedom" crap the other side is peddling. If I want to protest something law enforcement is doing, there are ways that are just as, if not more effective than carrying signs in the street and hanging out with entitled angry jackasses. I've got hired, taxpayer-funded entitled angry jackasses willing to answer the phone in Washington DC that I'll be a lot more effective and direct in communicating with than any "protestor" will manage to be. Standing out in the cold yelling at large, heavily armed people who are both a.) doing their job and b.) far more skilled than I at handing out ass kickings seems like doubling down on stupid. I decline to participate. You go right ahead, it's your right. I don't wanna.
But maybe that's just me. Follow your own conscience, and keep your grubby fucking hands off my gun rights.
If you're leaving home with the objective of fighting with cops you've either got a death wish or are stupid. Your argument presumes that doing so is remotely acceptable. It's not. No wonder you're arguing for taking a basic human right away.
Pretti was a vigilante. He was part of an organized group of "ICE disruptors" who think they have the moral authority to intimidate federal agents from conducting arrests. In this case, Pretti got into a physical altercation with agents who were attempting to arrest an illegal alien criminal named Jose Huerta-Chuma. Huerta-Chuma, an Ecuadorian national, had a violent criminal history, including domestic assault and disorderly conduct. Thanks to Pretti, he managed to escape capture during the incident in Minneapolis. It's being reported that Pretti broke a rib earlier this week in a separate altercation with ICE agents, so he wasn't an innocent, peace loving nurse who just happened to get carried away. He was a committed agitator looking for trouble.
Pretti got shot because he chose to make a chaotic situation worse. Against all common sense he went looking for trouble and brought a gun with him. When he got into a physical altercation with the cops one of them saw he had a gun, who naturally enough yelled "He has a gun" which amped up the situation. In a very short period of time another agent was able to disarm Pretti, but not all the other agents were aware of that. Almost immediately there was a single shot - possibly a negligent discharge of Pretti's gun by the agent who had it - and an agent shot Pretti thinking he was an active shooter. It was a chaotic, confusing situation where the agent had a split second to make a decision and armchair partisans now have hours to second guess him.
Pretti is responsible for putting himself and the federal agents in a situation that resulted in his death.
Not to be overly technical, although Pretti had a CCW he apparently wasn't legal to carry at the time because, in violation of Minnesota law he didn't have his government issued ID nor his CCW on his person.
"Don't go stupid places, with stupid people, at stupid times and do stupid things."
The rules of stupid are much like the rules of gun safety. Violating one or two is usually fine, but for every infraction during a given incident, the odds of something catastrophic happening go up exponentially.
Although the end result in Pretti's case appears to be final-destination levels of bad luck (ND resulting in panic shooting from less-than-perfect officers), luck got a pretty big push from his own actions, those of his compatriots, and those directing the whole affair.
You sound like a shitlib saying Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't have been legally allowed to bring his AR to a goddamn commie BLM protest, wise up useful idiot.
I think it does actually, your position is only consistent if you also believe Kyle Rittenhouse was being negligent/reckless. I mean, maybe you do, if you do, it would've been good to post that so your comment seems less tribal.
While Kyle also incurred risk in inserting himself into a situation he had no business being in, let alone armed. That also isn't the same. On the surface they may appear similar enough to warrant examination, but that is literally where the similarities end, on the surface. If you don't know why or I have to explain why they are so vastly different, there's no sense in doing so as you can't critically think past the surface analysis.
I actually think it's a pretty good point, and would be interested to hear the differences if you could explain it to someone as lowly and stupid as myself
Sure, but every comment can't be about every single thing all at once. If we were talking about a genocide, just because I don't mention Armenia does not mean I'm excusing or condoning the Armenian genocide.
Just because I don't mention whatever particular riot/protest/police use of force in a comment on substack doesn't mean that I'm taking a particular stance on them. If you see that, its just you projecting.
I carry a gun everyday. I don't go to places where I think I'm likely to need it. I also don't interfere in police / LEO matters. It's kept me alive this long; I don't think I'll change it.
I assume everyone is carrying a gun, and unless they're in a chemically altered state or have been adjudicated to be insane, I believe they not only have the right to do so, but that they probably should, regardless of where they call home on the political spectrum. I try to respect everyone's humanity, and every human has a right to live until disease or an accident takes them. The right to self defense doesn't stop if you're affiliated with a certain political party.
Our society should punish people for creating violence, and typically does. Depending on what really happened to cause Mr. Pretti to be killed, perhaps there are some ICE agent(s?) who should be subject to that punishment. I am hopeful that the truth about what happened will come out, and that if the law demands that someone stands up on charges for their misdeeds, they get a full, fair trial in a different venue.
The foregoing does not diminish my belief that Mr. Pretti was an imbecile who had no business going kinetic with federal LEOs. A pox on such people. While his actions perhaps didn't rise to the level of "needs to be shot at to make him stop", I have little quibble with the fact he wound up dead. What's unfortunate is that it's possible a LEO will sacrifice his freedom as a result, and perhaps the courts will be legally justified in so doing. Time will tell. I hope no LEOs are guilty of any crimes, but that's for the courts to decide, not me.
If I am carrying and have an interaction with police I don’t assume that I am dealing with a rational actor, I assume I’m dealing with the lowest common denominator. My only goal is to protect myself and get back home safely to my family. I got my first carry permit in 1996. It’s was drilled into me to avoid conflict at all costs while armed unless I was willing to kill or be killed. While this guy had a legal right to be armed it was monumentally stupid to insert himself into a situation with armed federal agents who I’m sure are stressed and on edge.
To "Intelligent Rights Anon", a claim was made, with no source or supporting information to solidify the claim. The claim in question is "the ways the officers failed", which is partially supported with "why didn't the .gov peacefully arrest him?" (sic). The problem with this question is that ANYTIME a lethal weapon is in play, peaceful resolution is a slim chance, not an assured. When things are happening at light speed, especially identifying that a lethal item is in play, there's no "slow play" or "rewind" to double check and play Monday day morning quarterback. Frankly, inserting yourself into an incident is a risk you incur. You magnify that risk when you bring things to the incident that will incur additional risk. You may be bringing them for yourself, but it's irrelevant, they add risk to a situation that may have more severe consequences. This also ignores the totality "on the ground", as protestors have ratcheted up violence to officers at buildings and performing operations. Should the .gov consider all violent protestors with soft gloves at all times, including when they are armed (when they probably shouldn't be)? NO. Yes, you have a right to be armed. Yes, you have a right to be stupid. But, you also have to accept the consequences for both. As someone that has attended Richmond many times (including our really big one in 2020), which is why I agree with some of the other comments listed before "intelligent".
One of the things BJ has hammered on, is when making a claim, bring the supporting information to support the claim. Otherwise, it's simply a BS claim. That last one from "intelligent", is one such BS claim.
The problem with the "rights should always exist and exercising them shouldn't result in a death sentence camp" are grossly ignorant on reality. There's fantasy and there's reality, and it also ignores the compounding factors of risk that YOU accept when you exercise a right. No right, NONE, is without consequences. They aren't unlimited and without any repercussions. To think they are without consequences is fantasy and those people that think that, need to live in reality.
If Pretti did nothing more than attend a protest while armed, and record the cops, then he did nothing wrong and the cops would have had no reason to contact him.
It looks, however, like Pretti did indeed physically contact one of the cops. That, it seems to me, is the first really big link in the chain that ended with his death.
(I love applying aviation safety concepts to gun safety and self defense, can you tell?)
If Pretti had not been armed, his chances of being shot would have approached zero.
So far (to date at least) ICE officers have not shot anyone who did not present a deadly force threat to them.
Reisiting arrest is not a deadly force threat, until one of them sees that you're strapped. Then the chances of things ending wetly go up significantly.
"So far (to date at least) ICE officers have not shot anyone who did not present a deadly force threat to them." Not sure a negative assertion has merit. It might be true, but it's still asserting a negative.
You weren't unclear - and this assertion is better, but it's still questionable, and easily made false, as soon as some fool decides poorly and actually shoots a protester who's not actually physically engaged in a threatening manner. I don't know of any examples, but it's easy to imagine some protester yelling at some panicking agent and the agent pulling a trigger.
Did you think the same when Kyle Rittenhouse successful defended himself from left wing thugs by bringing his AR to a protest, or are you just a Jew propaganda slurping idiot? Hint fundamental civil liberties don't just apply to one Jew manufactured political side. Defend legal peaceful gun owners from state tyranny or reap the whirlwind idiot.
Actually, yes I did. But, thanks for pointing out what side of the spectrum you are on with your post reply. Holy F, BJ, is this what you allow on here?
No idea CK, this is the first I've seen of Raven in the comments section before. It's not the spiciest thing I've seen here, but it's pretty spicy. Join the Slack if you like, it's more reasoned and less spicy there but it also has a tendnecy to bend towards Gabes Internet Fuckwad Theory on occasion.
Raven knock off the antisemitism plzkthx. I've got no problem banning people from the comments section and I do pay attention to it.
I fully expect this comments section to be the most ratioed of any I've ever hosted, though, because I pull a lot of 2A folks and this is a pretty tight 2A scissor, as described in the article.
I too have made the comparison with Rittenhouse, and I find a lot of parallels. I think the main difference is an important one. Pretti did what the left accused Rittenhouse of doing, which is looking for trouble. Rittenhouse was trying to extinguish a literal dumpster fire so it didn't blow up a gas station, and Pretti was trying to shake a stick in front of a poorly trained asshole cop to interfere with his business, probably as a result of a coordinated low grade insurgency effort. One of these two behaviors is altruistic. The other is LARPing saviorhood.
But there are definitely a lot of similarities so I don't think the comparison is entirely unwarranted.
I'll check back in a couple hours and if this conversation is not transpiring in good faith I'll nuke some folks.
Wasn’t freedom of speech something Americans always pretended to value? What was it that Vance told Europeans at the Munich security conference in 2025?
You missed the point you utter retard. I defended Rittenhouse AND I am defending Pretti both were legal gun owners, get it now you genrtically defective subhuman level moron hypocrite?
And you're wrong. But, good job with the insults. You show your hand again "Mr. Raven". You tell me all that I need to know. The situations between both Rittenhouse and Pretti are so vastly different, beyond the surface level examination, that it's laughable. They are so different past just "carrying gun", that even a child can critically think through the differences like a "what's different in each picture". You are really a piece of work... I hope you have the day you deserve.
Literally didn’t address the argument, if they are so different other than political ideology then the onus is on you to show that difference. As it stands we have shitlibs saying right wingers can’t being firearms to a protest and Con Inc. enjoyers saying shitlibs can’t bring a gun to a protest, you are peas in a gun grabbing pod.
Finally, a semi-cogent reply without any directed ad hominems and insults. Great start. Ok, let's deconstruct the two. Beyond simply being armed and incurring risk inserting yourself into a tense situation, here's the differences. 1, Rittenhouse wasn't provoking or attacking the protestors, HE was attacked. Did he incur additional risk bringing a firearm? Yes. I followed every day of his trial and he was found "Not Guilty". I agree with this verdict, full stop. I watched every video available and applied common sense, experience (over 40y of gun "stuff", let's leave it at that), and the law. He was in the right, not well-advised, but in the right. 2, Pretti brought a firearm (he's allowed) to a protest (he's allowed). He incurred risk by doing such, that's on him (just like Kyle). The key differences is Kyle was dealing with angry mobs and protestors, he wasn't going after them, they went after him. What did Pretti do? Was it to regular people or was it the law, Federal LE at that, doing 1 of the very few mandates they have to do as instructed by the Constitution (border integrity and immigration)? It was Federal LE that he decided to intercede with, which is a NON-starter. I've been to tons of protests, armed (concealed and open), I have never had any issue with LE, why is that? Because I'm not a fucking braindead moron that attacks them or tries to get into an altercation/argument with them. It's the same with traffic stops, determining legality on the side of the road is NOT the appropriate time and place.
If you think that doesn't break down the differences (at least at an elementary level), I don't know what to tell you. This is critical thinking 101.
I don't see how Jews have anything to do with this at all.
You can defend Pretti's right to have a gun just like you can defend Rittenhouse's right to have a gun, even in those situations. Pretti may not have been carrying proper ID, but that's a procedural issue.
Pretti's problem was escalating. Someone else mentioned "GTFO" and that's exactly what he should have done had he intended to definitely survive the protest.
I wrote that one. Not sure I understand your underlying point. My point is simply that more competent officers could have detained Pretti without killing him, and that the government has shown no interest in the possibility that that's true. Do you disagree with either of those statements?
I've seen this "competence" or "unqualified" come up, quite a bit. Here's the rub, crowd control and disturbances falls under local LE jurisdiction and training standards. What is the focus of Mission Essential Tasks for ICE (under DHS guidelines)? It's NOT crowd containment and it's not the "detaining armed suspects". Typically, these rules apply to non-US citizens, as that is who ICE is arresting. Local LE should be restraining the crowds, but you see a local government at odds here and THAT is where your attention should be, since it's not ICE's responsibility to detain US citizens, even though they are authorized to when they impede their Federal powers of detention of illegal aliens. This is also the incorrect thinking, because various agencies AND teams inside of agencies have VASTLY different training standards. Why? Because you can't train everybody everything, that's pretty basic critical thinking, right? Besides, anyone that uses terms like "competence" or "unqualified", that can't tell me what their training standards are, what training they are required (initial and sustainment), along with their mission essential tasks (which typically vary by jurisdiction, based on mission profiles), and can't speak with great expertise on the instructional systems design and course conduct of those trainings. If someone can't even come up with the background to defend their claim about competence or qualifications, and they can't even cite what they should be or defend how they arrived at those standards.... they have no business even making the aforementioned claim.
ICE gets FLETC training for initial and then has annual (or sometimes semi/quarterly) training standards FOR THEIR MISSION. Their mission isn't to stop random US citizens from interfering in their lawful apprehension of illegal aliens.
Yes I understand it better now. My objection would be that the Constitution supersedes all laws, so no government mission is more important than the Constitution. And it sounds trite, but people have 4A and 14A rights to not be killed due to police recklessness. That's settled case law. Therefore, the government can't* conduct law enforcement operations, kill someone through recklessness or excessive force, and then say they had no other option because they weren't adequately equipped/trained. The "other option" which, in theory, the Constitution mandates is that they constrain the mission only to things which they can accomplish constitutionally.
My broader concern is that if you watch the Pretti video and really can't think of any improvement lessons for LEOs to take away from it, I think that is the exact attitude in LE institutions that leads to the incompetence demonstrated in the video. If Pretti should be expected to have performed better after being pepper sprayed, while being beaten in the head, and on the bottom of a dog pile, then one could concede that the people forming the dog pile had a little room to perform better too.
*In practice, they of course do this all the time. So this is more an argument about what the law says on paper rather than the reality of what prosecutors allow LEOs to get away with.
And what precedes those Amendments, in the main body? Oh yeah, 1 of the main purposes outlined in that document you mentioned, is the Federal right for protection of border and immigration. It's literally in the document.
As for the lessons from it, I stated the answer to that already. You. Can't. Train. Everyone. For. Everything. Their mission is to arrest illegal aliens, not restrain/detain US citizens protesting THE THING THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO IN THE CONSTITUTION (listed above).
Your argument fails in those points, and anything else is reductive by itself.
I'm one of the "rights guys" -- generally "more libertarian" and "more pro-2A" than like 99.99% of the rest of the country -- and it's the very fact that I don't trust cops at all, that makes me think Pretti was being an idiot; Albeit, probably while fully within the scope encompassed by his rights. Just like I might have the *right* to start walking across the street as soon as the Red Hand turns to the White Walk signal, but if there's a bus coming, the Laws of Physics are going to overrule the Laws of Man pretty godsdamned hard on me.
It sucks that someone is dead, but I've had the NV State Police *show up in a helicopter* out where I was shooting out in the desert because my friends and I had a bunch of rifles and Tannerite. And nobody got shot. Because we all immediately put all of the guns down and held our hands out open palmed and spoke with the fellows who showed up shortly thereafter in an SUV in a nice calm fashion. In theory, we'd have been fully within our rights to be really prickly with them. That likely would not have made things go more smoothly.
Frankly, I find it baffling that the people who are more in my camp on the subject of opinions of police behavior aren't *more* in the camp of "So let's *not* go out and intentionally fuck with the same people we tend to think of as poorly trained assholes out on a power trip, shall we?"
Wasn’t censorship something Americans have been accusing Europeans of (cp. Vance‘s speech at the Munich security conference in 2025). Yet, when reading the thread here, it seems as if people are perfectly fine with censoring others, who are just exerting their right to free speech. Another hypocritical moment?
Hmm. I really need to take the time to read these comments in-depth, possibly with a notepad.
My take on the shooting - this one might be a little more justified than the Good shooting, if only because this particular cop didn’t do anything as stupid as firing into a moving vehicle. It’s still not indicative of great tactics and training on ICE’s part. But then again, is it reasonable to expect every government blunt instrument to be a USPSA Grand Master and a multiple Shivworks ECQC grad? Outside of my fantasies, probably not.
I’ve been contemplating this one a bit, being as how I was literally carrying a concealed weapon at the afore-mentioned Richmond 2A rally last week.
I've attended that one over the last 15 years, mostly concealed. The only time I wasn't, was 2020. And there were A LOT of people "geared". Difference? We didn't assault police, we didn't even yell at them. They were there, VSP was onsite with react team assembled close by (I know this). Literally night and day different, both in execution and conclusion.
So by that token, if Pretti had simply been on-site filming a police action, then this would have been a wrongful shooting?
I think I addressed this point above - it appears that Pretti did go hands-on with one of the cops, but I could be wrong about that.
That’s the binary switch, IMO - the difference between an unlucky but legally justified shooting and a bunch of Fed jackboots murdering a peaceful protestor.
If Pretti had merely been filming and done NOTHING else, we'd be arguing with him right now about how ICE should have left the nice violent offender alone and walking MN's streets. He could have even been shouting at them quite rudely, and he'd have been fine. As soon as he engaged physically, his risk went up monumentally.
So, I agree with the comments stating that what Pretti did was pretty dumb from a self-preservation perspective. But I'd also like to point out that his actions actually got Trump's DHS to back down more than any other protest action.
My takeaways: If you value self-preservation above all else, carrying a firearm at a protest is not wise. If you value your "cause" more than your life, carrying a firearm at a protest probably enhances your effectiveness exponentially. I mean, imagine a world where the ICE guys know most of the protesters are armed. You'd have a lot less of the tough-guy shoving on their part, at the very least. They'd probably also be a lot more selective with the random dragnets they'd choose to conduct, which would be welcome, imho. I've always assumed that a healthy fear of the citizenry was kind of the point of the 2nd Amendment.
I see a fair amount of generalizations, simplifications, and non-nuanced analysis in this piece but it is interesting with a lot of novel insights.
My best advice to everyone on both sides who is not interested in potential lead therapy and s to stay the fuck out of the streets and, barring that, leave your weapons at home. I mean I know you have a RIGHT to tote that weapon, but is it a smart idea. The answer is a big fat no.
If you do go to protest and you don’t want to get your wig split by LEO then give their asses a wide fucking berth.
I am a literally a Nazi and I had my first gun when I was 12 so I have plenty of practical experience with guns of all types and this is bullshit. These IDF Jew trained thugs murdered a white man who was a vet and peaceful legal gun owner in cold blood. If you don't understand right wing anti-Semites are going to be next in the crosshairs of these Jew trained psycopaths you are a legit genetically defective retard.
Ad hominem if you can't refute my arguments using evidence and reason don't make a fool out of yourself by blathering about literally nothing of substance.
I don't think you understand what ad hominem is. Wait, was THAT ad hominem?
I said: "your commentary here doesn't make me think you'd have anything substantive." That's not ad hominem; that's looking at what you've said and extrapolating, while granting the possibility that you've chosen to be a firebrand here for whatever reason. To me, you are who you tell me are, and that lacks substance. C'est la vie. If you have substance and you're not showing, feel free to change that whenever you like.
It is ad hominem which is Latin for to the man and means you attack the person and not the argument. If you believe I am wrong the onus is on you to refute my assertions using evidence and reason, not just claim you know I am wrong without substantiating your assertion.
I think he was merely reacting, much as you seem to be doing.
I don't agree with him, honestly - I'd rather you explain what makes you a Nazi, like, the formative process and what allows you to remain one, and what value you think being one brings to your life. As I've said, I've known others - it's not very common to find *actual* Nazis, although antisemites are a dime a dozen these days - and it's always curious to try to understand them.
You're not wrong. I don't have anything to say to a self proclaimed Nazi. I'm not interested in his story or in finding out more about him. At best, he's garden-variety crazy. At worst he's a sociopath that looks for reasons to feel superior to people, and picking on minority groups is the low hanging fruit. Regardless, he's not interesting and not in my presence, so he's someone else's problem. Thankfully.
I was a leftist for 30 years until I figured out the "capitalists," imperialists," landlords, war profiteers and other parasites I despised were Jews. Pretty simple really.
Okay. So were all Jews "capitalists," "imperialists," "landlords," "war profiteers" and other parasites? What about those Jews who are distinctly not capitalists - lots of socialists Jews out there - or imperialists, or landlords (I'm Jewish and own my home and that's it), or war profiteers - hell, I don't even donate to warlike concerns, my donations go to peaceful or medical endeavors.- I suppose "other parasites" is pretty broad, so maybe that's "all the other Jews."
Jonas Salk was Jewish, he literally changed medicine for the world in a positive way, and he's not the only Jew who's done that. I value healing the world over all other concerns - a good reason why I'm not going "ew you're a Nazi to hell with you," because that sentiment helps the world exactly 0% regardless of how it might satisfy one to say it. If I'm a parasite, I'm unaware.
But you do you, hate everyone for a subset you've identified. Sounds reasonable. Every human I dislike is human, so I clearly should be a misanthrope.
Of course you are Jewish shoving you in a gas chamber and watching you turn blue and die will be an extra special pleasure. I will ask to personally oversee it.
The vast majority are yes. They are the wealthiest demographic in America by far with roughly 44 percent making over 100K which put them in the upper middle class white collar parasite on honest labor demographic. And note that was in 2016, it’s probably more like 150K now ten years later. No Jew works as a cashier, or at a fast food restaurant, or a construction job they are useless fucking parasites. Even “good Jews” like Glenn Greenwald are media grifters.
So wait, a self-identified literal Nazi is calling out this administration for not only murdering Alex Pretti but also being a tool of Israel? Better not show this to the lefties, their little heads will explode.
There are certain cliches that I regard as an instant forfeit in an argument, and "He didn't deserve to be executed!" is one of them.
The speaker is conceding that his person did something wrong, but selfishly demanding that the interaction be litigated solely in terms of the perspective and interests of his person, and "execution" is always a very dishonest description of the outcome.
One doesn't utter that cliche if he has a defensible case.
"Did something wrong" is doing a lot of work here, there's lots of flavors of "doing something wrong" for which death is an unjust outcome.
Running a red light rarely results in death.
But it can.
Does the person who actually dies "deserve to die" more than the many who escape unharmed?
Once again, these mind games are being played to imply that a person has been wronged without actually making that case at all. I abhor that sort of dishonesty.
That’s a very fitting analogy.
If a person runs a red light and dies in a car crash as a result, that is very different from being killed by an ICE enforcement officer. It's not even like if they ran a red light, got pulled over, got belligerent with the cop, then got shot, because we can all agree that running a red light is dangerous and should not be normalized, so cops should absolutely ticket you for that, but it is highly controversial to suggest that ICE enforcement officers are performing any sort of valuable service to the community or that they are actually the same sort of thing as cops.
Attacking a federal agent is very much like running a red light in that it's quite dangerous and should not be normalized. You seemed to realize that in the middle of your own post, so you quickly turned tail and wrote a weasel-worded shibboleth to bail yourself out of your own reasoning.
No, it's not, in that the ethics of the two situations are completely different, and that's what the "he didn't deserve to die" line is getting that. Depending on what the federal government is up to, it could be ethical to murder all federal agents. Could be reckless to engage in random aggression (not entirely sure this happened, but I don't think it matters either) against federal agents (I think some would call it heroic, depending, in this instance I think it was reckless), sure, and that's the commonality, but it's the ethics that make it completely different and disanalogous. To be clear, I don't think we're currently at the point where it would make sense to try to take out the federal government, but I think a lot of people (myself included) feel the current administration is basically illegitimate and its acts don't actually go under the "law and order" umbrella, agents that are implementing its agenda don't actually merit the deference typically afforded to LEOs.
If you truly think that the current administration is illegitimate, I guess my first question would be if you thought this same way about the COVID-era Biden administration? This would give me a good idea of whether you're working from a definable ethical framework, or if it's just more 'I Support the Current Thing'...
So because you "feel the current administration is basically illegitimate", that gives you and whoever else the right to interfere or obstruct with federal immigration officers?
I wouldn't put your theory into practice, just saying
By the description I'd be in both camps. Rights and practicality are far from mutually exclusive, but Anon Longly basically has all this down in the same way I would.
You can protest while armed. You can film cops while armed. You probably even should.
I certainly wouldn't step foot outside in Minnesota in today's political climate without extra ammo, because I never know if I might get mistaken for ICE because I'm white and have short hair and harassed/assaulted by a mob of 30 useful idiots.
As a responsible armed citizen the best thing you can do when a peaceful protest (There's another argument here that is for another discussion) looks like it's about to get less peaceful is to GTFO.
You can't go hands with any armed law enforcement while also armed and be surprised if you come out of it without all your vital fluids.
Pretti made a fundamental, basic mistake of conduct while armed and the predictable thing happened.
Did the immigration/customs officers also make mistakes? Sure. Shoving that woman so hard she ended up on the ground on the sidewalk looks good exactly nowhere. I get it, I understand it, but you can't be doing that now. That, plus Pretti getting similarly shoved off the street (though not so that he ended up on the ground) probably ticked him over from "Intelligent human" to "raging sacrifice" because he couldn't leave his ego at home. (another thing they drum into you at concealed carry license classes)
I've been called a bootlicker for pointing out this simple fact about a dozen times so far.
You seem to be conflating “should be able to” with “should”.
There is no reason to carry a gun to a protest against law enforcement unless you plan on killing law enforcement. What is your gun going to accomplish?
If it's actually a 1st amendment protected protest (certainly arguable in this case) then, quite simply, you'd carry because you always carry and there's no reason to disarm just because you're exercising another primary right.
Carrying a gun to an organized disruption operation on the other hand...
Horseshit. I carry a gun every waking moment because I never know when I'll need it. Maybe it's at my destination. Maybe it's somewhere along the way between home and there. And when I arrive at my destination, I am loathe to leave a gun in the car. That's how guns get stolen and put into the hands of criminals. Or in this case of "demonstrations", senselessly burned along with the vehicle. Not that I go to such things. I have no interest in yelling in the streets, carrying signs, or freezing my ass off. You go right ahead, you can have all of mine, hell take my lifetime allotment!
And I'll tell you something else: going to protests in general seems like a waste of time. Going to protests against law enforcement seems like an indictment of one's character. No thanks, none for me. Law and order seems one hell of a lot better to me than any of the alleged "freedom" crap the other side is peddling. If I want to protest something law enforcement is doing, there are ways that are just as, if not more effective than carrying signs in the street and hanging out with entitled angry jackasses. I've got hired, taxpayer-funded entitled angry jackasses willing to answer the phone in Washington DC that I'll be a lot more effective and direct in communicating with than any "protestor" will manage to be. Standing out in the cold yelling at large, heavily armed people who are both a.) doing their job and b.) far more skilled than I at handing out ass kickings seems like doubling down on stupid. I decline to participate. You go right ahead, it's your right. I don't wanna.
But maybe that's just me. Follow your own conscience, and keep your grubby fucking hands off my gun rights.
If you’re leaving home with the objective of getting in a shoving match with cops it would probably be best to leave the gun at home.
If you're leaving home with the objective of fighting with cops you've either got a death wish or are stupid. Your argument presumes that doing so is remotely acceptable. It's not. No wonder you're arguing for taking a basic human right away.
I’m not arguing for any such thing. Maybe stop licking the bullets when you’re doing your reloading, friend.
Well, that was at least a funny retort!
Pretti was a vigilante. He was part of an organized group of "ICE disruptors" who think they have the moral authority to intimidate federal agents from conducting arrests. In this case, Pretti got into a physical altercation with agents who were attempting to arrest an illegal alien criminal named Jose Huerta-Chuma. Huerta-Chuma, an Ecuadorian national, had a violent criminal history, including domestic assault and disorderly conduct. Thanks to Pretti, he managed to escape capture during the incident in Minneapolis. It's being reported that Pretti broke a rib earlier this week in a separate altercation with ICE agents, so he wasn't an innocent, peace loving nurse who just happened to get carried away. He was a committed agitator looking for trouble.
Pretti got shot because he chose to make a chaotic situation worse. Against all common sense he went looking for trouble and brought a gun with him. When he got into a physical altercation with the cops one of them saw he had a gun, who naturally enough yelled "He has a gun" which amped up the situation. In a very short period of time another agent was able to disarm Pretti, but not all the other agents were aware of that. Almost immediately there was a single shot - possibly a negligent discharge of Pretti's gun by the agent who had it - and an agent shot Pretti thinking he was an active shooter. It was a chaotic, confusing situation where the agent had a split second to make a decision and armchair partisans now have hours to second guess him.
Pretti is responsible for putting himself and the federal agents in a situation that resulted in his death.
Not to be overly technical, although Pretti had a CCW he apparently wasn't legal to carry at the time because, in violation of Minnesota law he didn't have his government issued ID nor his CCW on his person.
"Don't go stupid places, with stupid people, at stupid times and do stupid things."
The rules of stupid are much like the rules of gun safety. Violating one or two is usually fine, but for every infraction during a given incident, the odds of something catastrophic happening go up exponentially.
Although the end result in Pretti's case appears to be final-destination levels of bad luck (ND resulting in panic shooting from less-than-perfect officers), luck got a pretty big push from his own actions, those of his compatriots, and those directing the whole affair.
The guy who falls asleep at the wheel and hits a tree does not "deserve to die". He certainly doesn't "deserve to be executed".
But his death is most certainly not anyone else's fault.
This "deserves" rhetoric is meant to imply that a person has been wronged without actually making that case at all.
What's 'deserve' got to do with it?
I'm agreeing with you.
Pretty sure the ICE agents have more agency than a tree
You sound like a shitlib saying Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't have been legally allowed to bring his AR to a goddamn commie BLM protest, wise up useful idiot.
Are you sure you're replying to the right person? 'Cause what you're saying bears no relationship to what I said.
I think it does actually, your position is only consistent if you also believe Kyle Rittenhouse was being negligent/reckless. I mean, maybe you do, if you do, it would've been good to post that so your comment seems less tribal.
While Kyle also incurred risk in inserting himself into a situation he had no business being in, let alone armed. That also isn't the same. On the surface they may appear similar enough to warrant examination, but that is literally where the similarities end, on the surface. If you don't know why or I have to explain why they are so vastly different, there's no sense in doing so as you can't critically think past the surface analysis.
I actually think it's a pretty good point, and would be interested to hear the differences if you could explain it to someone as lowly and stupid as myself
I've explained it elsewhere in this thread, try reading. I'm not typing it all out again.
True, but it's a great rebuttal to use if you have to talk to a lib. "So what Kyle Rittenhouse did was OK?"
The chance of having this discussion with anyone is zero, but I'd love to hear the responses.
Sure, but every comment can't be about every single thing all at once. If we were talking about a genocide, just because I don't mention Armenia does not mean I'm excusing or condoning the Armenian genocide.
Just because I don't mention whatever particular riot/protest/police use of force in a comment on substack doesn't mean that I'm taking a particular stance on them. If you see that, its just you projecting.
I carry a gun everyday. I don't go to places where I think I'm likely to need it. I also don't interfere in police / LEO matters. It's kept me alive this long; I don't think I'll change it.
I assume everyone is carrying a gun, and unless they're in a chemically altered state or have been adjudicated to be insane, I believe they not only have the right to do so, but that they probably should, regardless of where they call home on the political spectrum. I try to respect everyone's humanity, and every human has a right to live until disease or an accident takes them. The right to self defense doesn't stop if you're affiliated with a certain political party.
Our society should punish people for creating violence, and typically does. Depending on what really happened to cause Mr. Pretti to be killed, perhaps there are some ICE agent(s?) who should be subject to that punishment. I am hopeful that the truth about what happened will come out, and that if the law demands that someone stands up on charges for their misdeeds, they get a full, fair trial in a different venue.
The foregoing does not diminish my belief that Mr. Pretti was an imbecile who had no business going kinetic with federal LEOs. A pox on such people. While his actions perhaps didn't rise to the level of "needs to be shot at to make him stop", I have little quibble with the fact he wound up dead. What's unfortunate is that it's possible a LEO will sacrifice his freedom as a result, and perhaps the courts will be legally justified in so doing. Time will tell. I hope no LEOs are guilty of any crimes, but that's for the courts to decide, not me.
If I am carrying and have an interaction with police I don’t assume that I am dealing with a rational actor, I assume I’m dealing with the lowest common denominator. My only goal is to protect myself and get back home safely to my family. I got my first carry permit in 1996. It’s was drilled into me to avoid conflict at all costs while armed unless I was willing to kill or be killed. While this guy had a legal right to be armed it was monumentally stupid to insert himself into a situation with armed federal agents who I’m sure are stressed and on edge.
To "Intelligent Rights Anon", a claim was made, with no source or supporting information to solidify the claim. The claim in question is "the ways the officers failed", which is partially supported with "why didn't the .gov peacefully arrest him?" (sic). The problem with this question is that ANYTIME a lethal weapon is in play, peaceful resolution is a slim chance, not an assured. When things are happening at light speed, especially identifying that a lethal item is in play, there's no "slow play" or "rewind" to double check and play Monday day morning quarterback. Frankly, inserting yourself into an incident is a risk you incur. You magnify that risk when you bring things to the incident that will incur additional risk. You may be bringing them for yourself, but it's irrelevant, they add risk to a situation that may have more severe consequences. This also ignores the totality "on the ground", as protestors have ratcheted up violence to officers at buildings and performing operations. Should the .gov consider all violent protestors with soft gloves at all times, including when they are armed (when they probably shouldn't be)? NO. Yes, you have a right to be armed. Yes, you have a right to be stupid. But, you also have to accept the consequences for both. As someone that has attended Richmond many times (including our really big one in 2020), which is why I agree with some of the other comments listed before "intelligent".
One of the things BJ has hammered on, is when making a claim, bring the supporting information to support the claim. Otherwise, it's simply a BS claim. That last one from "intelligent", is one such BS claim.
The problem with the "rights should always exist and exercising them shouldn't result in a death sentence camp" are grossly ignorant on reality. There's fantasy and there's reality, and it also ignores the compounding factors of risk that YOU accept when you exercise a right. No right, NONE, is without consequences. They aren't unlimited and without any repercussions. To think they are without consequences is fantasy and those people that think that, need to live in reality.
If Pretti did nothing more than attend a protest while armed, and record the cops, then he did nothing wrong and the cops would have had no reason to contact him.
It looks, however, like Pretti did indeed physically contact one of the cops. That, it seems to me, is the first really big link in the chain that ended with his death.
(I love applying aviation safety concepts to gun safety and self defense, can you tell?)
Bingo.
If Pretti had not been armed, his chances of being shot would have approached zero.
So far (to date at least) ICE officers have not shot anyone who did not present a deadly force threat to them.
Reisiting arrest is not a deadly force threat, until one of them sees that you're strapped. Then the chances of things ending wetly go up significantly.
"So far (to date at least) ICE officers have not shot anyone who did not present a deadly force threat to them." Not sure a negative assertion has merit. It might be true, but it's still asserting a negative.
“They have only shot individuals presenting a deadly force threat to them.”
Have I created clarity?
You weren't unclear - and this assertion is better, but it's still questionable, and easily made false, as soon as some fool decides poorly and actually shoots a protester who's not actually physically engaged in a threatening manner. I don't know of any examples, but it's easy to imagine some protester yelling at some panicking agent and the agent pulling a trigger.
Easy to imagine but until it happens it’s like cats on Mars.
Did you think the same when Kyle Rittenhouse successful defended himself from left wing thugs by bringing his AR to a protest, or are you just a Jew propaganda slurping idiot? Hint fundamental civil liberties don't just apply to one Jew manufactured political side. Defend legal peaceful gun owners from state tyranny or reap the whirlwind idiot.
Actually, yes I did. But, thanks for pointing out what side of the spectrum you are on with your post reply. Holy F, BJ, is this what you allow on here?
No idea CK, this is the first I've seen of Raven in the comments section before. It's not the spiciest thing I've seen here, but it's pretty spicy. Join the Slack if you like, it's more reasoned and less spicy there but it also has a tendnecy to bend towards Gabes Internet Fuckwad Theory on occasion.
Raven knock off the antisemitism plzkthx. I've got no problem banning people from the comments section and I do pay attention to it.
I fully expect this comments section to be the most ratioed of any I've ever hosted, though, because I pull a lot of 2A folks and this is a pretty tight 2A scissor, as described in the article.
I too have made the comparison with Rittenhouse, and I find a lot of parallels. I think the main difference is an important one. Pretti did what the left accused Rittenhouse of doing, which is looking for trouble. Rittenhouse was trying to extinguish a literal dumpster fire so it didn't blow up a gas station, and Pretti was trying to shake a stick in front of a poorly trained asshole cop to interfere with his business, probably as a result of a coordinated low grade insurgency effort. One of these two behaviors is altruistic. The other is LARPing saviorhood.
But there are definitely a lot of similarities so I don't think the comparison is entirely unwarranted.
I'll check back in a couple hours and if this conversation is not transpiring in good faith I'll nuke some folks.
Wasn’t freedom of speech something Americans always pretended to value? What was it that Vance told Europeans at the Munich security conference in 2025?
You missed the point you utter retard. I defended Rittenhouse AND I am defending Pretti both were legal gun owners, get it now you genrtically defective subhuman level moron hypocrite?
And you're wrong. But, good job with the insults. You show your hand again "Mr. Raven". You tell me all that I need to know. The situations between both Rittenhouse and Pretti are so vastly different, beyond the surface level examination, that it's laughable. They are so different past just "carrying gun", that even a child can critically think through the differences like a "what's different in each picture". You are really a piece of work... I hope you have the day you deserve.
Literally didn’t address the argument, if they are so different other than political ideology then the onus is on you to show that difference. As it stands we have shitlibs saying right wingers can’t being firearms to a protest and Con Inc. enjoyers saying shitlibs can’t bring a gun to a protest, you are peas in a gun grabbing pod.
Finally, a semi-cogent reply without any directed ad hominems and insults. Great start. Ok, let's deconstruct the two. Beyond simply being armed and incurring risk inserting yourself into a tense situation, here's the differences. 1, Rittenhouse wasn't provoking or attacking the protestors, HE was attacked. Did he incur additional risk bringing a firearm? Yes. I followed every day of his trial and he was found "Not Guilty". I agree with this verdict, full stop. I watched every video available and applied common sense, experience (over 40y of gun "stuff", let's leave it at that), and the law. He was in the right, not well-advised, but in the right. 2, Pretti brought a firearm (he's allowed) to a protest (he's allowed). He incurred risk by doing such, that's on him (just like Kyle). The key differences is Kyle was dealing with angry mobs and protestors, he wasn't going after them, they went after him. What did Pretti do? Was it to regular people or was it the law, Federal LE at that, doing 1 of the very few mandates they have to do as instructed by the Constitution (border integrity and immigration)? It was Federal LE that he decided to intercede with, which is a NON-starter. I've been to tons of protests, armed (concealed and open), I have never had any issue with LE, why is that? Because I'm not a fucking braindead moron that attacks them or tries to get into an altercation/argument with them. It's the same with traffic stops, determining legality on the side of the road is NOT the appropriate time and place.
If you think that doesn't break down the differences (at least at an elementary level), I don't know what to tell you. This is critical thinking 101.
I don't see how Jews have anything to do with this at all.
You can defend Pretti's right to have a gun just like you can defend Rittenhouse's right to have a gun, even in those situations. Pretti may not have been carrying proper ID, but that's a procedural issue.
Pretti's problem was escalating. Someone else mentioned "GTFO" and that's exactly what he should have done had he intended to definitely survive the protest.
I wrote that one. Not sure I understand your underlying point. My point is simply that more competent officers could have detained Pretti without killing him, and that the government has shown no interest in the possibility that that's true. Do you disagree with either of those statements?
I've seen this "competence" or "unqualified" come up, quite a bit. Here's the rub, crowd control and disturbances falls under local LE jurisdiction and training standards. What is the focus of Mission Essential Tasks for ICE (under DHS guidelines)? It's NOT crowd containment and it's not the "detaining armed suspects". Typically, these rules apply to non-US citizens, as that is who ICE is arresting. Local LE should be restraining the crowds, but you see a local government at odds here and THAT is where your attention should be, since it's not ICE's responsibility to detain US citizens, even though they are authorized to when they impede their Federal powers of detention of illegal aliens. This is also the incorrect thinking, because various agencies AND teams inside of agencies have VASTLY different training standards. Why? Because you can't train everybody everything, that's pretty basic critical thinking, right? Besides, anyone that uses terms like "competence" or "unqualified", that can't tell me what their training standards are, what training they are required (initial and sustainment), along with their mission essential tasks (which typically vary by jurisdiction, based on mission profiles), and can't speak with great expertise on the instructional systems design and course conduct of those trainings. If someone can't even come up with the background to defend their claim about competence or qualifications, and they can't even cite what they should be or defend how they arrived at those standards.... they have no business even making the aforementioned claim.
ICE gets FLETC training for initial and then has annual (or sometimes semi/quarterly) training standards FOR THEIR MISSION. Their mission isn't to stop random US citizens from interfering in their lawful apprehension of illegal aliens.
Did I help frame my position a little better?
Yes I understand it better now. My objection would be that the Constitution supersedes all laws, so no government mission is more important than the Constitution. And it sounds trite, but people have 4A and 14A rights to not be killed due to police recklessness. That's settled case law. Therefore, the government can't* conduct law enforcement operations, kill someone through recklessness or excessive force, and then say they had no other option because they weren't adequately equipped/trained. The "other option" which, in theory, the Constitution mandates is that they constrain the mission only to things which they can accomplish constitutionally.
My broader concern is that if you watch the Pretti video and really can't think of any improvement lessons for LEOs to take away from it, I think that is the exact attitude in LE institutions that leads to the incompetence demonstrated in the video. If Pretti should be expected to have performed better after being pepper sprayed, while being beaten in the head, and on the bottom of a dog pile, then one could concede that the people forming the dog pile had a little room to perform better too.
*In practice, they of course do this all the time. So this is more an argument about what the law says on paper rather than the reality of what prosecutors allow LEOs to get away with.
Every incident like this has potential training lessons. I can pull up 5 or 6 just off the top of my head in relation to the Pretti shooting.
They might not be practical be applied directly to Immigration and customs agent training due to their scope, but there's always lessons.
And what precedes those Amendments, in the main body? Oh yeah, 1 of the main purposes outlined in that document you mentioned, is the Federal right for protection of border and immigration. It's literally in the document.
As for the lessons from it, I stated the answer to that already. You. Can't. Train. Everyone. For. Everything. Their mission is to arrest illegal aliens, not restrain/detain US citizens protesting THE THING THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO IN THE CONSTITUTION (listed above).
Your argument fails in those points, and anything else is reductive by itself.
Clarifying: are you saying that CBP officers have nothing they can feasibly learn or improve from this incident?
I'm one of the "rights guys" -- generally "more libertarian" and "more pro-2A" than like 99.99% of the rest of the country -- and it's the very fact that I don't trust cops at all, that makes me think Pretti was being an idiot; Albeit, probably while fully within the scope encompassed by his rights. Just like I might have the *right* to start walking across the street as soon as the Red Hand turns to the White Walk signal, but if there's a bus coming, the Laws of Physics are going to overrule the Laws of Man pretty godsdamned hard on me.
It sucks that someone is dead, but I've had the NV State Police *show up in a helicopter* out where I was shooting out in the desert because my friends and I had a bunch of rifles and Tannerite. And nobody got shot. Because we all immediately put all of the guns down and held our hands out open palmed and spoke with the fellows who showed up shortly thereafter in an SUV in a nice calm fashion. In theory, we'd have been fully within our rights to be really prickly with them. That likely would not have made things go more smoothly.
Frankly, I find it baffling that the people who are more in my camp on the subject of opinions of police behavior aren't *more* in the camp of "So let's *not* go out and intentionally fuck with the same people we tend to think of as poorly trained assholes out on a power trip, shall we?"
"The biggest risk is doing something that causes both tribes to sort you into their out-groups."
Like "thinking for yourself?"
Count says 45 comments and I can only see like 26.
Curious.
Wasn’t censorship something Americans have been accusing Europeans of (cp. Vance‘s speech at the Munich security conference in 2025). Yet, when reading the thread here, it seems as if people are perfectly fine with censoring others, who are just exerting their right to free speech. Another hypocritical moment?
Not sure if you're talking about the comment count or something else.
Hmm. I really need to take the time to read these comments in-depth, possibly with a notepad.
My take on the shooting - this one might be a little more justified than the Good shooting, if only because this particular cop didn’t do anything as stupid as firing into a moving vehicle. It’s still not indicative of great tactics and training on ICE’s part. But then again, is it reasonable to expect every government blunt instrument to be a USPSA Grand Master and a multiple Shivworks ECQC grad? Outside of my fantasies, probably not.
I’ve been contemplating this one a bit, being as how I was literally carrying a concealed weapon at the afore-mentioned Richmond 2A rally last week.
I've attended that one over the last 15 years, mostly concealed. The only time I wasn't, was 2020. And there were A LOT of people "geared". Difference? We didn't assault police, we didn't even yell at them. They were there, VSP was onsite with react team assembled close by (I know this). Literally night and day different, both in execution and conclusion.
So by that token, if Pretti had simply been on-site filming a police action, then this would have been a wrongful shooting?
I think I addressed this point above - it appears that Pretti did go hands-on with one of the cops, but I could be wrong about that.
That’s the binary switch, IMO - the difference between an unlucky but legally justified shooting and a bunch of Fed jackboots murdering a peaceful protestor.
If Pretti had merely been filming and done NOTHING else, we'd be arguing with him right now about how ICE should have left the nice violent offender alone and walking MN's streets. He could have even been shouting at them quite rudely, and he'd have been fine. As soon as he engaged physically, his risk went up monumentally.
Brilliant post.
So, I agree with the comments stating that what Pretti did was pretty dumb from a self-preservation perspective. But I'd also like to point out that his actions actually got Trump's DHS to back down more than any other protest action.
My takeaways: If you value self-preservation above all else, carrying a firearm at a protest is not wise. If you value your "cause" more than your life, carrying a firearm at a protest probably enhances your effectiveness exponentially. I mean, imagine a world where the ICE guys know most of the protesters are armed. You'd have a lot less of the tough-guy shoving on their part, at the very least. They'd probably also be a lot more selective with the random dragnets they'd choose to conduct, which would be welcome, imho. I've always assumed that a healthy fear of the citizenry was kind of the point of the 2nd Amendment.
I see a fair amount of generalizations, simplifications, and non-nuanced analysis in this piece but it is interesting with a lot of novel insights.
My best advice to everyone on both sides who is not interested in potential lead therapy and s to stay the fuck out of the streets and, barring that, leave your weapons at home. I mean I know you have a RIGHT to tote that weapon, but is it a smart idea. The answer is a big fat no.
If you do go to protest and you don’t want to get your wig split by LEO then give their asses a wide fucking berth.
Good luck to us all!
I am a literally a Nazi and I had my first gun when I was 12 so I have plenty of practical experience with guns of all types and this is bullshit. These IDF Jew trained thugs murdered a white man who was a vet and peaceful legal gun owner in cold blood. If you don't understand right wing anti-Semites are going to be next in the crosshairs of these Jew trained psycopaths you are a legit genetically defective retard.
At least you're erudite. That means you know wordses.
It's weird - I know antisemites, and I know actual Nazis, too, and it's always stunning when one actually seems to be able to reason.
Ring me up if you have anything substantive to say about the topic at hand.
Why? Your commentary here doesn't really make me think you'd have anything substantive to say BACK.
Ad hominem if you can't refute my arguments using evidence and reason don't make a fool out of yourself by blathering about literally nothing of substance.
I don't think you understand what ad hominem is. Wait, was THAT ad hominem?
I said: "your commentary here doesn't make me think you'd have anything substantive." That's not ad hominem; that's looking at what you've said and extrapolating, while granting the possibility that you've chosen to be a firebrand here for whatever reason. To me, you are who you tell me are, and that lacks substance. C'est la vie. If you have substance and you're not showing, feel free to change that whenever you like.
It is ad hominem which is Latin for to the man and means you attack the person and not the argument. If you believe I am wrong the onus is on you to refute my assertions using evidence and reason, not just claim you know I am wrong without substantiating your assertion.
I hate fucking Nazis. Go drink Draino.
Deep thots. Do you have any other well considered nuggets of wisdom to offer the world?
I think he was merely reacting, much as you seem to be doing.
I don't agree with him, honestly - I'd rather you explain what makes you a Nazi, like, the formative process and what allows you to remain one, and what value you think being one brings to your life. As I've said, I've known others - it's not very common to find *actual* Nazis, although antisemites are a dime a dozen these days - and it's always curious to try to understand them.
You're not wrong. I don't have anything to say to a self proclaimed Nazi. I'm not interested in his story or in finding out more about him. At best, he's garden-variety crazy. At worst he's a sociopath that looks for reasons to feel superior to people, and picking on minority groups is the low hanging fruit. Regardless, he's not interesting and not in my presence, so he's someone else's problem. Thankfully.
I was a leftist for 30 years until I figured out the "capitalists," imperialists," landlords, war profiteers and other parasites I despised were Jews. Pretty simple really.
Okay. So were all Jews "capitalists," "imperialists," "landlords," "war profiteers" and other parasites? What about those Jews who are distinctly not capitalists - lots of socialists Jews out there - or imperialists, or landlords (I'm Jewish and own my home and that's it), or war profiteers - hell, I don't even donate to warlike concerns, my donations go to peaceful or medical endeavors.- I suppose "other parasites" is pretty broad, so maybe that's "all the other Jews."
Jonas Salk was Jewish, he literally changed medicine for the world in a positive way, and he's not the only Jew who's done that. I value healing the world over all other concerns - a good reason why I'm not going "ew you're a Nazi to hell with you," because that sentiment helps the world exactly 0% regardless of how it might satisfy one to say it. If I'm a parasite, I'm unaware.
But you do you, hate everyone for a subset you've identified. Sounds reasonable. Every human I dislike is human, so I clearly should be a misanthrope.
Of course you are Jewish shoving you in a gas chamber and watching you turn blue and die will be an extra special pleasure. I will ask to personally oversee it.
The vast majority are yes. They are the wealthiest demographic in America by far with roughly 44 percent making over 100K which put them in the upper middle class white collar parasite on honest labor demographic. And note that was in 2016, it’s probably more like 150K now ten years later. No Jew works as a cashier, or at a fast food restaurant, or a construction job they are useless fucking parasites. Even “good Jews” like Glenn Greenwald are media grifters.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/
Big vax fan, eh? Lol!
So wait, a self-identified literal Nazi is calling out this administration for not only murdering Alex Pretti but also being a tool of Israel? Better not show this to the lefties, their little heads will explode.
I'm not sure it's exactly well-reasoned.
Neither is their use of Nazi/fascist as an epithet against anybody they disagree with, which is exactly my point.
Let them explode both leftists and Con Inc. conservatives are idiots who haven't had an original thought for decades.