3rd shooting in Minnesota.

[Caligurl]

Im usually on the side of the law but this time, I think the officers made a mistake. What I see is a overkill of officers trying to get Pretti under control when one of the officers removes the pistol from Pretti and yells "gun". What I am thinking is with all the chaos of trying to perform their duties and having to deal with protestors that are clearly agitating them, they had a bad moment when the one officer yelled gun and the one officer fires the gun at Pretti. The other officers on instinct are wanting to eliminate the threat after hearing gun and follow suit by firing too. In the commotion of trying to get Pretti under control, the other officers either did not see the officer remove the gun from Pretti and just reacted to the officer saying gun.  

In hindsight of this horrible outcome, I have to ask why Pretti would bring a weapon to a place he where he felt he would quite possibly need to use it. If that's the case, I don't think he was protecting himself from the protestors who have like ideologies as him, but rather to make sure he was safe from who he was protesting about. 

I know people will say he had a license to carry the gun and that it is his right to carry it, but that looks good on paper and not in the situation he was placing himself in. Let's face it, when police detain you, what is the first thing they do? They pat you down for weapons for their safety. Taking a gun to a highly agitated situation that you place yourself in the middle of is not a very good idea although you have every rite to do so.

[ReturnofBroccoli]

I watched one video total of the incident and there wasnt much to see really, looked to me like enforcement made a mistake but im not OIG but whoever is will investigate it and Im pretty sure the shooter is cooked. People make mistakes even trained ones. It sucks but it is what it is. They don't exactly have a record for making these kinds of mistakes though so overall they're doing an ok job. Situations are intense especially when you deal with them every hour of the day. The guy definitely should not have screamed gun gun gun because the guy that shot obviously had that panic and word psychologically associated to shoot to kill. Its sad, this guy probably thought they were under attack and he was saving lives. Now his life and Pretti's will be forfeit to the machine. 

Another sad thing that people hyperfocus on a single tragedy like it represents anything else but an accident. Emotional Vampires.

[ReturnofBroccoli]

Im usually on the side of the law but this time, I think the officers made a mistake. What I see is a overkill of officers trying to get Pretti under control when one of the officers removes the pistol from Pretti and yells "gun". What I am thinking is with all the chaos of trying to perform their duties and having to deal with protestors that are clearly agitating them, they had a bad moment when the one officer yelled gun and the one officer fires the gun at Pretti. The other officers on instinct are wanting to eliminate the threat after hearing gun and follow suit by firing too. In the commotion of trying to get Pretti under control, the other officers either did not see the officer remove the gun from Pretti and just reacted to the officer saying gun.  

In hindsight of this horrible outcome, I have to ask why Pretti would bring a weapon to a place he where he felt he would quite possibly need to use it. If that's the case, I don't think he was protecting himself from the protestors who have like ideologies as him, but rather to make sure he was safe from who he was protesting about. 

I know people will say he had a license to carry the gun and that it is his right to carry it, but that looks good on paper and not in the situation he was placing himself in. Let's face it, when police detain you, what is the first thing they do? They pat you down for weapons for their safety. Taking a gun to a highly agitated situation that you place yourself in the middle of is not a very good idea although you have every rite to do so.

Yeah, what you said. Way to look at it with integrity.

[CriticalStinker]

At least we can agree he was there only to obstruct the cops who were enforcing bipartisan immigration laws.
Obstructing to push a political ideology.
Add to that…
Armed.
Violently putting hands on cops.
Violently resisting arrest.

Here’s something you may not know.
That building where the shooting happened, 2614 Nicollet, is home to 184 NPI’s, national provider identification number.
Those are healthcare organizations taking money from the government.
11,000 square foot office with 184 “health providers”?
Do you think that’s normal?

Also, three doors down from that fraud mall, 2628 Nicollet, is home to three child daycare centers.
Owner’s name: Siman Aden

Siman Aden is also owner of the “Quality Learing Center” that was made famous for fraud.

Another coincidence huh?

https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/2015185578388754862

I just see a whole bunch of hyperbole, and straw grasping that wouldn’t be admissible in court.

If you think a judge would throw the book at him for putting his hands up to protect his face, I don’t know what to tell you. A guy with no criminal record in good standing with the community, an ICU nurse for the VA no less. 

You keep saying “violently” as if we all haven’t seen the video. It happened in like ten seconds. He got pepper sprayed and was on ice after being struck. You’re going to flail a little bit. It’s not like he was throwing punches.

That doesn’t give officials the right to say he was a domestic terrorist. You have to prove intent with that.

Also, showing up to a protest with a gun isn’t illegal. Having multiple mags isn’t illegal. I imagine many people on this site have a gun and a few mags on them sometimes, or in their vehicle. Pretty normal stuff. You can say he ended up in a situation you wouldn’t want to be in with that on you, that’s something different. But you have to prove he had intent to commit a crime while holding the weapon to make a case for that, which is for court. Pulling up random statements and talking about a building that exists isn’t a court declared conviction.

There is thousands of hours of footage showing people with guns at protests. Rifles, pistols, ect. Hell, there were some people with AR-15s in Richmond the other week to protest very strict gun control trying to get passed in Virginia.

the translation is, “small federal government” “shall not be infringed” and “I’m exercising my 2nd amendment right in protest” don’t mean anything for the right anymore. It only means those things for them, not for all citizens. Nor does the right to a trial. 

The simple move here is to just say what happened was tragic, and likely because a tense situation happened very fast. The comments by Noem, Miller and Bovino were too fast and not thought through. It’s the antithesis of some of the core principles the right has ran on for decades. Instead people are doing mental gymnastics to morally crucify someone as a domestic terrorist. 

This won’t be the last time we see something like this, and other administrations will do it again just like it’s been done in the past. And the right has done nothing to fight it because they too use the same script when it’s convenient.

[KrustyKrab]

I think Gill nailed the nuts and bolts of it all and I agree with him 100%. 

[imitator]

Word is, Trump's becoming a YUGE letdown to the MAGA faithful... he purges the ICE leadership, now I'm hearing he's yanking feds out of Minnesota.

Is Trump's administration tucking tail and retreating?  

[Caligurl]

Word is, Trump's becoming a YUGE letdown to the MAGA faithful... he purges the ICE leadership, now I'm hearing he's yanking feds out of Minnesota.

Is Trump's administration tucking tail and retreating?  

No, but as a Trump supporter, he is doing what he feels is best for the American citizens in THIS situation. Either that or ICE has finished their business in this city and is off to the next. 

[Kurokage]

https://apnews.com/article/shooting-minn...02ce7480a7

Bovino is set to leave Minneapolis as Trump reshuffles the leadership of his immigration crackdown.MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino is expected to leave Minneapolis on Tuesday, according to a person familiar with the matter, as the Trump administration reshuffles leadership of its immigration enforcement operation and scales back the federal presence after a second fatal shooting by federal officers.

President Donald Trump said he was placing his border czar, Tom Homan, in charge of the mission, with Homan reporting directly to the White House, after Bovino drew condemnation for claiming the man who was killed, Alex Pretti, had been planning to “massacre” law enforcement officers, a characterization that authorities had not substantiated.
Saturday’s fatal shooting of Pretti, an ICU nurse, by Border Patrol agents ignited political backlash and raised fresh questions about how the operation was being run.

Bovino’s leadership of highly visible federal crackdowns, including operations that sparked mass demonstrations in Los Angeles, Chicago, Charlotte and Minneapolis, has drawn fierce criticism from local officials, civil rights advocates and congressional Democrats.

Well, it sure looks like things have come to a head and Bovino has been sacked over the conduct of his officers

[ReturnofBroccoli]

It's funny you say Goebbels...

He became the right-wing chief propagandist for the Nazi party.

I can see comparisons between this shooting, the Trump Administration attempting to weaponize this shooting and demonize Alex Pertti, and as you pointed out Goebbels use of propaganda

You know buddy I see you comparing right wing and nazi and all that but nationalists aren't bad, right isnt bad, left isnt bad, PEOPLE are BAD and anyone has the potential for monstrosity. Guns aren't evil either, its how you use it. Same with the agenda.

I think the key is in the balance of it all and learning to compromise instead of drawing lines in the sand because when you draw a line in the sand, you force the other to cross it. They have to because if they don't they are stuck there. So maybe it isn't a good way to solve problems. In the words of Sun Tzu - always leave your enemy an opening for exit.

There's also a thing called acceptable loss. When someome draws a line in the sand and is like "dont cross this or else" always cross it because its the worst they can think of and you can probably live with it but they apparently can't live with you crossing that line ;)

[CriticalStinker]

Im usually on the side of the law but this time, I think the officers made a mistake. What I see is a overkill of officers trying to get Pretti under control when one of the officers removes the pistol from Pretti and yells "gun". What I am thinking is with all the chaos of trying to perform their duties and having to deal with protestors that are clearly agitating them, they had a bad moment when the one officer yelled gun and the one officer fires the gun at Pretti. The other officers on instinct are wanting to eliminate the threat after hearing gun and follow suit by firing too. In the commotion of trying to get Pretti under control, the other officers either did not see the officer remove the gun from Pretti and just reacted to the officer saying gun.  

In hindsight of this horrible outcome, I have to ask why Pretti would bring a weapon to a place he where he felt he would quite possibly need to use it. If that's the case, I don't think he was protecting himself from the protestors who have like ideologies as him, but rather to make sure he was safe from who he was protesting about. 

I know people will say he had a license to carry the gun and that it is his right to carry it, but that looks good on paper and not in the situation he was placing himself in. Let's face it, when police detain you, what is the first thing they do? They pat you down for weapons for their safety. Taking a gun to a highly agitated situation that you place yourself in the middle of is not a very good idea although you have every rite to do so.

I agree with your analysis on how this tragedy likely transpired.

But it would be better if authorities were just honest about that too.

Which reads better to the public?

”It’s incredibly unfortunate a tense situation happened to unfold with the shooting of Pretti. Agents believed there was a threat in a matter of seconds and acted to protect themselves and colleagues. We strongly urge people not to put themselves in situations like this to prevent such outcomes”

Or:

”This was clearly a domestic terrorist who went out to try and assassinate agents”

Everyone saw the video. He never pulled a gun, authorities aren’t even claiming that, yet they’re saying he was a domestic terrorist. He was face down with hands out and got mag dumped in the back. You can say option one and minimize the fallout, and give people the sense you’re trying to be transparent and prevent stuff like this, or you can lie to everyone.

If this admin got elected to be different, is this different than Clinton with Waco or Ruby Ridge? There were possible criminal elements there, yet the public and more specifically the right were outraged because of the handling of those situations. It helped define the small federal government philosophy.