Comment by starkparker
3 days ago
> At a news conference, Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said the man who was shot was a 37-year-old white man with no serious criminal history and a record that showed some parking tickets. Law enforcement sources said Saturday their records show Pretti had no serious criminal history.
> O'Hara said the man was a “lawful gun owner” with a permit. Records show that Pretti attended the University of Minnesota. State records show Pretti was issued a nursing license in 2021, and it remains active through March 2026.
Minnesota permit-to-carry requirements: https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/public-services-bca/firearm...
> Q: Do I have to disclose to a peace officer that I am a permit holder and carrying a firearm?
> A: Yes, upon request of a peace officer, a permit holder must disclose to the officer whether or not the permit holder is currently carrying a firearm.
So a U.S. citizen who is a legal, permitted gun owner with no outstanding criminal charges, legally carrying in public, who complies with the law and informs a DHS officer that they are legally carrying, is effectively subject to summary execution without due process. (The penalty for permitted carrying without possessing the physical permit card is $25 for a first offense and forfeiture of the weapon; it would've been his first offense per Minneapolis police.)
If ever there was a 2A violation, it's a federal officer shooting and killing a legal gun owner solely for possessing a gun in their presence.
Possessing a fire arm and having an encounter with law enforcement in the united states has long been a death sentence. You can find a multitude of videos online of cops doing stuff like getting the wrong address and beating on someones door and when that person opens the door with a gun in their hand and then the cops open fire, happens all the time.
But this person did not even have a gun in his hand. He had a gun on him, concealed. In fact, the video shows another ICE agent walking up to him and digging it out and taking it away. The execution happened after all of that.
The most likely situation is that he actually voluntarily told them that he has a firearm because he is a lawful gun owner with a concealed carry permit. Most gun owners know that this is the best way to interact with law-enforcement, for example, when you get pulled over. But we will not know because these agents do not wear body cams on purpose.
Oh, I completely agree in addition to murdering this man they violated his second amendment rights and will continue to violate them in justifying his murder.
>The most likely situation is that he actually voluntarily told them that he has a firearm because he is a lawful gun owner with a concealed carry permit. Most gun owners know that this is the best way to interact with law-enforcement, for example, when you get pulled over. But we will not know because these agents do not wear body cams on purpose.
People have differing opinions, however the opinion most persuasive to me is you only tell them if asked unless the law requires otherwise. Volunteering you have a gun when there is no requirement to do so in my opinion adds unnecessary tension to the situation. IDK about in Minnesota, but in my state there is no duty to inform the police and you can basically only downsides to doing so, since they will be asking before you get into any situation where they're going to be going into your waistband to find out.
In one of the states I lived in, IIRC they changed the law to remove duty to inform because their cops had a history of executing people that informed them.
ICE is not law enforcement any more, they are terrorist killer commandos now.
4 replies →
I seem to recall the Bundys having no trouble pointing guns directly at law enforcement. They became cause celebres for the right.
The bundies had a whole militia, and the last time federal LEO challenged a militia of his size (Waco) they had like 700+ casualties due to inspiring McVeigh (he was there). They basically lost 20:1 versus the Davidians.
Cliven Bundy is still grazing his cattle on that BLM land to this day.
The bargain with law enforcement has always been that ostensibly if you comply, they will take you in peacefully. For obvious reasons, this is highly advantageous to both parties.
It seems like a foolish choice for them to reneg on this. They are essentially signaling that you are a trapped rat with no way out.
It is not foolish if you consider they are looking for their Reichstag fire.
> They are essentially signaling that you are a trapped rat with no way out.
It makes sense if making you feel like a trapped rat is the goal.
That’s true if you want to keep the peace. The way to read their actions is that they’re trying to incite violence.
If Trump can incite violence then he can invoke the insurrection act, or perhaps declare some form of martial law to seize more power. Perhaps even parlay this into cancelling the midterm elections.
Or simply that the current ICE and Border Patrol agents are too poorly trained to act as law enforcement.
Which, given the statistic that a decent percentage of ICE applicants can't get a passing score on an open book test [0] doesn't surprise me.
[0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ice-is-reportedly-hiring-p...
> peace officer
What’s it called when you name something the complete opposite of what it is?
Not an oxymoron, because that’s about the concepts in the words.
the link returns 404 now
[flagged]
I don't think the phrasing of "confront law enforcement" is right here, in a period of about 20 seconds he went from helping a woman who had been pushed, to maced in the face, to dead. This is not confrontation, you can literally see him clutching the woman he had previously been helping up in a panic after they were sprayed with chemicals.
But setting all of that aside (which is a big aside), even if he was confronting them with his camera while armed, the whole bullshit shtick of the second amendment is that being armed should not be a crime much less a death sentence. He did not brandish his weapon or threaten law enforcement in any of the half dozen videos that have been released so far. To be even more clear as a citizen you are allegedly supposed to be protected from summary execution/judgement with or without the possession of a firearm, in many legal circles the possession of a firearm grants you more protections under the law not less.
[flagged]
3 replies →
That's a really good question for all those ICE and DHS agents.
I suspect a partial answer might be that many are not in their right minds, are under trained, and over motivated by bonus payments and past divorces.
[flagged]
9 replies →
Wow, that's some deep passive-aggressive victim blaming right there.
[flagged]
12 replies →
> So a U.S. citizen who is a legal, permitted gun owner with no outstanding criminal charges, legally carrying in public, who complies with the law and informs a DHS officer that they are legally carrying, is effectively subject to summary execution without due process.... a federal officer shooting and killing a legal gun owner solely for possessing a gun in their presence.
This completely misrepresents what happened.
Another source (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/man-tackled-by-ice-in-chao...) gives another claim from the same police chief:
> "The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming."
And then, from the DHS:
> ...when a federal agent feared for his life, "an agent fired defensive shots." ... Border Patrol Cmdr. Greg Bovino said that the officer involved in the shooting "has extensive training," and that "the situation is evolving." Bovino added that the incident would be investigated.
(TFA includes the claim of self-defense.)
"Summary execution" and "without due process" is emotionally manipulative phrasing. It falsely implies that LEO use of lethal force is about punishment. It is not about punishment. It is about responding to perceived threat.
All this stuff about permit cards, the victim's lack of criminal history, etc. is irrelevant. It is not connected to the motivation for the shooting. There is nothing to establish that the shooting was "solely for" that possession, and LEO denies that claim. There is no plausible universe in which the officer says "please show me the permit for that weapon", Pretti says "I don't have it", and the officer shoots. But that's the narrative you appear to be trying to push.
> Another source (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/man-tackled-by-ice-in-chao...) gives another claim from the same police chief:
>> "The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming."
You've misread your link. The "violently resisted" quote is from a tweet by DHS, not local police: https://xcancel.com/DHSgov/status/2015115351797780500
Direct multiple-paragraph quote:
> The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) posted on X further details about what led up to the shooting. "DHS law enforcement officers were conducting a targeted operation in Minneapolis against an illegal alien wanted for violent assault, an individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, seen here," the post reads.
> O'Hara said that Pretti was a “lawful gun owner” with a permit.
> "The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming."
> The DHS wrote that when a federal agent feared for his life, "an agent fired defensive shots." The post also noted that the "suspect" had "2 magazines and no ID."
By any ordinary reading of prose, the article is attributing the quote to O'Hara.
20 replies →
I suspect it won't matter to you, but there's clear footage now of officers having removed the gun from the suspect long before he was shot. He was pinned and prone when he was executed. Claiming this was "defensive" is just a lie.
I've watched four videos but haven't seen any footage (clear or otherwise) of gun removal. Can you post a link to clear footage of the removal?
One video [1] shows someone walking away from the scene with a gun a fraction of a second before the shooting begins. But I can't see that the gun was removed from the protester.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1qlvpbr/footage_of_the...
22 replies →
[flagged]
2 replies →
> "The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming."
This has already been proven to be a lie thanks to the five different videos of the incident in question. They shot him after removing his legal weapon for concealed carry that he was permitted to have on his person.
Show me one of them. Show me how you think it demonstrates such a thing. Make sure it is something that starts well before the actual apprehension.
16 replies →
"It is not about punishment."
I’m not sure how you can possibly make that assertion. They disarmed him and then they shot him.
> They disarmed him and then they shot him.
So you're saying you can show me a video where it's clear that the gun is in an LEO's physical possession, everyone involved clearly has time to update on this information, and someone makes an evidently conscious decision to shoot him anyway, despite him clearly no longer posing a physical threat?
Really?
Because otherwise, it is not about punishment.
7 replies →
> "Summary execution" and "without due process" is emotionally manipulative phrasing.
It's exactly what this was, though. He was disarmed before being shoved to the ground and beaten with a gas grenade. There is another video which shows that his hands are on the ground or in front of his face, the entire time he's down, long before he's shot.
Watch the fucking videos.
[flagged]
DHS has yet to release a factually accurate statement about any ICE-involved violence, you really think this time they're telling the truth?
You know you can watch the videos yourself
Honestly, man, there is no other answer to this than this: you are a nazi sympathizer.
[flagged]