3rd shooting in Minnesota.

[Kurokage]

That is the key word here.

You and others are speaking as a generalization that all of these agents are untrained and will attack anyone they see. I've already said there are going to be shtibags on both sides, but "protestors" interfering with federal agents is not "legally being there", as is federal agents randomly attacking protestors is not within their legal rights to do.

Who said all? If you read the story I posted it says a large number of the newly recruited.

Again, poor training will lead to confrontations with normally law abiding citizens, which has been proven with lots of research on this subject.

[Kurokage]

The only ones escalating the situation are the lawless agitators who are not letting law enforcement do their job.   Period.   If the law enforcement were to back down then the lawless mob would 'win' and the criminals would win, and law abiding citizens everywhere in this country would lose.   And that crowd isn't a 'normal law abiding crowd'.   Impeding law enforcement and getting in the faces of that law enforcement and spitting at them (assault in this country) and causing damage to police vehicles is not a  'normal law abiding crowd'.

The agitators are the only ones to blame. 
 If they would stop protecting criminals then none of this would be happening.

It's not about backing down, it's about de-escalating a situation, which should be part of training in controlling crowds. Which appears ICE agents haven't had.

[Kurokage]

Like the example of running up on a dog with its owner.  Especially if you keep running up on them after the dog growls.

You don’t run up on law enforcement interfering in their duties where time and again it’s been held up in court agents have the right to protect themselves and their fellow agents if they think their safety is threatened.  Where you give the warning of pepper spray and pushed / shoved aside, and Pretti made the mistake for going back for more?  Pretti was stupid.

Please post a clip of the video where he's given a warning of being peppered sprayed?? I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist as he's bent over trying to help one of the women to their feet when sprayed.

[putnam6]

It's not about backing down, it's about de-escalating a situation, which should be part of training in controlling crowds. Which appears ICE agents haven't had.

De-escalation was in the Minneapolis Police Department's purview, but they chose not to participate 

Elsewhere, it's gone much more smoothly and by the numbers 

Georgia 8 times the arrests as Minnesota no bullshit WHY?

Because Georgia local law enforcement participated

In Minneapolis, not only did Minneapolis LEO not participate, but we have members of the government informing ICE watch, where and when to coordinate disruption events

[Kurokage]

De-escalation was in the Minneapolis Police Department's purview, but they chose not to participate 


Elsewhere, it's gone much more smoothly and by the numbers 

Georgia 8 times the arrests as Minnesota no bullshit WHY?

Because local law enforcement participated

I definitely think that training and following protocols will help with the original task of ICE Agents, rather than crowd control.

What's your opinion on these legislative changes in Georgia?

  Recent legislative actions in Georgia aim to increase accountability for ICE agents following a controversial incident involving the agency, sparking public protests and political debate.
Legislative ActionsIn January 2026, Georgia Senate Democrats introduced a series of bills known as the "Fight Back on ICE" legislative package. This initiative was prompted by the shooting of Renee Good by ICE agents in Minnesota, which reignited discussions about immigration enforcement and the accountability of federal agents operating in Georgia. The proposed legislation includes several key measures:

• Identification Requirements: ICE agents would be required to visibly identify themselves during enforcement actions, prohibiting them from wearing masks or face coverings unless for medical reasons or during covert operations. 
  
  2
  
• Judicial Oversight: The bills would mandate that ICE agents obtain a judicial warrant before entering sensitive locations, such as daycare centers, to ensure that their actions are legally justified. 
  
  1
  
• Civil Liability: Individual agents could face civil liability for any wrongdoing, aiming to hold them accountable for their actions while on duty.
  

[MrGashler77]

Im not the one continuing this drama after I agreed with you. Bring out the ruler if you need it. Otherwise I already dropped it, maybe you should too, or dont Idc

My point clearly stated any time I take you down its a use of force and that is pretty valid in just about every agency I ever heard. Do you disagree and if you not then what is your deal because you are the one coming at Anne asking how much use of force training she has do you want to measure her too?

If you think I have an attitude it probably has to do with you bullying civilians which I'd point out is their problem with law enforcement in the first place and I think someone of your caliber should hold themselves to a higher standard, dont you?

Calling the situation an execution was more than enough justification for asking what she understands about use of force.
Coming to her rescue about being asked about her understanding was a little....odd....especially when you seemed to agree.
I don't work with civilians, but I find it funny that you immediately go to 'bullying'.
Asking someone for their level of understanding about a topic when they make stupid statements isn't bullying.
Calling you out on your weird reaction towards me asking her for her understanding of use of force isn't bullying.
What standard should I hold myself to if you think my standard isn't where you think it should be?

[putnam6]

I definitely think that training and following protocols will help with the original task of ICE Agents, rather than crowd control.

What's your opinion on these legislative changes in Georgia?

The legislative changes weren't in effect for any of the ICE arrests in 2025, which again had a low chaos rating. Georgia has a large, diverse legal immigrant population that has worked well with most departments embedded in thier community 

If they pass, they pass, but they seem unnecessary in Georgia, as again, the high volume of ICE arrests top 10 nationally, and yet no major injuries or chaos.

 

 the bills you described have not passed in Georgia as of late January 2026 (the current date being January 30, 2026). These proposals were introduced by Democratic state senators on January 13, 2026, during the early days of the 2025-2026 legislative session, but they remain in the introduction/committee stage with no indication of advancement to passage.
The bills form a Democratic-led package often referred to as "Fight Back on ICE" legislation, responding to concerns over federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) tactics, including recent incidents elsewhere (e.g., a shooting in Minnesota) and broader national debates over immigration enforcement under the current administration.
Key details on the specific bills matching your description:

• Identification Requirements (prohibiting masks/face coverings unless for medical reasons or covert operations, requiring visible ID/badges): This is Senate Bill 389 (SB 389), sponsored by Sen. Kim Jackson (D-Stone Mountain). It would require ICE agents ("covered immigration officers") to wear visible identification (e.g., badges showing "ICE" and name/badge number, legible from 25 feet) during public-facing enforcement and ban face coverings that obscure identity or face, with exceptions for covert ops or safety.
  
• Judicial Oversight (requiring a judicial warrant before entering sensitive locations like daycare centers/schools, hospitals, places of worship, etc.): This aligns with Senate Bill 391 (SB 391), sponsored by Sen. Nabilah Parkes (D-Duluth). It would bar immigration enforcement (by state, local, or federal agents) at "sensitive places" — including schools, colleges, hospitals, libraries, places of worship, and domestic violence shelters — unless a judicial warrant is obtained.
  
• Civil Liability (allowing individual agents to face civil liability for wrongdoing): This is Senate Bill 397 (SB 397), sponsored by Sen. Josh McLaurin (D-Sandy Springs/North Fulton). It would create a state-level civil cause of action, enabling Georgians to sue federal officials (including ICE agents) in state court for violations of constitutional rights during enforcement.
  

A related bill (SB 390) addresses National Guard deployment restrictions but doesn't directly match your points.
These bills were unveiled at a press conference on January 13, 2026, and assigned to committees shortly after (e.g., SB 389 to committee on January 14). However, Georgia's legislature has a strong Republican majority, and multiple reports describe the proposals as facing significant GOP opposition (often called "ridiculous" or unnecessary, noting existing federal accountability mechanisms). No votes, amendments, or passages have been reported in news coverage or legislative tracking as of now — the session is still early, but these face long odds of enactment given the partisan divide.
If you're tracking a specific bill number or have updates from after January 30, share more for a re-check! For official status, the Georgia General Assembly website (legis.ga.gov) would show the latest on these SB numbers.

[sahgwa]

Most are peaceful demonstrators with many ICE agents complaining about mission creep, with having to police protests.

Poorly or Untrained ICE agents can be just as guilty at instigating or elevating tensions.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world...86659.html

blablablabla most people are good but the group is ruined by a few bad apples wa wa wa
Not going to work this time. They are being propaganda-pushed and sometimes paid to obstruct and create violence.
And if this unnatural push wasn't there, then the useful idiots wouldn't be there either.

[ReturnofBroccoli]

Calling the situation an execution was more than enough justification for asking what she understands about use of force.
Coming to her rescue about being asked about her understanding was a little....odd....especially when you seemed to agree.
I don't work with civilians, but I find it funny that you immediately go to 'bullying'.
Asking someone for their level of understanding about a topic when they make stupid statements isn't bullying.
Calling you out on your weird reaction towards me asking her for her understanding of use of force isn't bullying.
What standard should I hold myself to if you think my standard isn't where you think it should be?

Yes because you were sincere in your question, it wasnt pointed at all. Please lol. You never asked for her understanding of use of force you asked her how much training she had after she stated how she saw it. The conversation is over. I think you should reflect on it. I will not be replying.

[chr0naut]

This right here tells me that you absolutely have no idea what you are talking about....no Glock has 3 user interface safety's. 

It is called the 'Safe Action System', and Glock use it on a number of models:

GLOCK 19 Gen6

You are also misrepresenting intention in this situation. Again, you have the gift of hindsight, the officers were reacting to a gunshot that did not come from any of them, a mere seconds after one of them announced there was a firearm on Pretti's person. 

Intention means that someone did something by act of will. Something non-intentional would be something that happened randomly, or by accident.

INTENTIONAL Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

INTENTIONAL Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

You had the slightest amount of common sense for a split second, and then you completely blew it out of the water....smh

Propensity would imply that the officers first instinct, in every situation, is to draw and fire his weapon. That is factually incorrect, as usual.

The word "propensity" does not mean 'always'.

PROPENSITY Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

PROPENSITY Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

The officers/agents in question only drew to fire once a non LEO firearm was discharged. Yes, it was a ND, but again remember that nobody in the pile knew Pretti was disarmed. They reacted with lethal force, which Pretti had escalated the situation to. Yes, Pretti escalated the situation to lethal when he resisted arrest while possessing a firearm. 

Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest - Constitution Society

Removing an officer from regular duty to "ride a desk" for the rest of his career is ignorant and shows what little you actually know about law enforcement as a whole. 
 

What is the difference between a beat cop, and a detective?

More ignorance, what a surprise.

No officer has a "get out of jail free card" for being on the force. Plain and simple, whether you choose to realize it or not. Anytime there is a lethal use of force incident with an officer, they are placed on desk duty until the investigation is complete as to if it was a lawful shoot or not. If it was, they are put back on the street to patrol and continue their duties. If it was not, they are then removed from duty and the trials begin. 

The officers who killed Pretti were put on 'administrative leave' (which means that the employee continues to receive their regular pay and benefits while they are away from work. This leave is typically granted under specific circumstances, such as investigations into alleged misconduct).

They have been "removed from duty", so the "trials can begin".

Federal officers involved in Alex Pretti shooting placed on leave, DHS says

Are there "bad-cop thrill-killers" in every law enforcement agency around the world, absolutely. Do you only see these people as "bad-cop thrill-killers" because of the situation that led up tot he shooting, without taking into account the actual accounts of what happened, you absolutely do. 

In human psychology, there are degrees of expression of inclinations. It isn't an either/or hard division.

An officer who carries a gun a lot, can derive a sense of power from doing so, and that sense of power can motivate an officer towards inappropriate use of the weapon.

This is why otherwise normal people go to see John Wick movies. They draw a psychological thrill from the over-the-top violence mixed with some sort of lop-sided justification. It doesn't take much for a normal person with opportunity and in a tense or confused situation, to step over the line (That is why using the 2nd Amendment as reason to arm just about everyone, is so stupid).

To break this down for you again, Pretti showed up armed to a "protest"(which is his legal right to do), while vandalizing agents vehicles and resisting officers.

He kicked a car driving away from him, breaking the tail light, and shouted at the officers (who, although they grabbed him and shook him around, and pushed him to the ground, do not have appeared to arrest him. They just roughed him up, got back in their SUV's, and left).

He then chose to do it again, interfered with agents performing their duties(a crime btw)

It has been alleged, but there has not been any evidence in the public domain that supports the accusation. Also, the initial response from authorities that made that claim, also said that he was brandishing his firearm at them. We all know that isn't true.

And, exactly what were the CBP agents doing there, that Pretti could interfere with? You can't claim that he was interfering with an enforcement operation without specifics of the part of the operation at that specific date, time and location, and also how they were interfering with it?

As I understand it, the protest was organized and protestors had gathered at the location before CBP arrived. So CBP were the ones illegally interfering with a protest and pushing it towards violent resistance (entrapment).

, assaulted officers while resisting arrest(another crime)

Pretti did not approach officers, he was approached by the officers. All he was doing prior to their approach, was filming the officers with his phone.

Pretti, and the woman who tried to seek Pretti's aid, had been pepper sprayed prior to any physical contact with CBP officers. It is doubtful that they even knew who they were struggling with. Pepper spray is designed to irritate the eyes.

Once the CBP officers had Pretti on the ground, and before anyone shouted about the gun, the officers are seen in several video's to be beating Pretti with battens.

A minute-by-minute timeline of the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti

, when he did that he escalated the situation because he did have a firearm and that is what led to the shooting. Was the shooting lawful, yes. Should the shooting have happened in the first place, no. Is Pretti's death a tragedy, yes. Were there a lot of things that went wrong on both sides that led to his death that could have been avoided, you're damn right. 

Not sure how much more simple I could make this for you to understand, I know you will resist either way so good luck to you in your delusions.

The videos of the situation, and the sequence of events, do not support the official excuses. It was, in fact, a series of crimes perpetrated by thuggish CBP officers.