|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 25 2026 14:43 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2026 10:58 ChristianS wrote:On January 25 2026 09:34 Manit0u wrote:
Oh no. Let's not to this again please... How does owning and knowing how to use the gun protect you from the government? They have tanks and drones, your pea-shooter won't help you one bit. It doesn’t seem incoherent to me at all to say “if the system isn’t going to impose consequences on ICE, we better make them scared to break into our houses for no reason another way.” More generally, it’s pretty hard right now to say “don’t take matters into your own hands, the right way is to let the proper authorities mete out justice.” You need a warrant to go in a home. You just do. The FBI arrested 67,000 people in 2025. Did they show you and I a warrant for every one? Or probable cause? Is there a searchable mandatory public database with every warrant for every arrest? Maybe with enough innuendo and saying the FBI are breaking into people's homes and kidnapping people I can get some rubes to similarly mob the FBI until a Democrat is elected to pretend to dismantle them. After all, who invited federal agents to execute national law in states? Perhaps the FBI should only operate in the few parts of the nation that aren't states. Even if you outlawed getting people at their homes, how's public places, ChristianS? That's the only alternative. There's either public or private places. You're on board with public? If you can't get them in either then the law effectively doesn't exist until we have the invention of Star Trek teleporters.
Kash Patel's FBI probably didn't in 2025, but every year prior yes. And yes, arrest warrants are public record, this is how due process and the judicial system works for exactly this reason.
Theres not an if, it is ILLEGAL TO INVADE SOMEONE'S HOME WITHOUT A WARRANT SIGNED BY A JUDGE. Is your argument that it's better for nobody to feel safe at home so that there's less public arrests? Are you just a full on anti-constitutionalist?
Show nested quote +On January 25 2026 12:29 Manit0u wrote:On January 25 2026 10:58 ChristianS wrote:On January 25 2026 09:34 Manit0u wrote:
Oh no. Let's not to this again please... How does owning and knowing how to use the gun protect you from the government? They have tanks and drones, your pea-shooter won't help you one bit. It doesn’t seem incoherent to me at all to say “if the system isn’t going to impose consequences on ICE, we better make them scared to break into our houses for no reason another way.” More generally, it’s pretty hard right now to say “don’t take matters into your own hands, the right way is to let the proper authorities mete out justice.” The best argument *against* political violence right now is that it would escalate the violence in a way that would hurt everybody. But when men with guns are coming into your neighbor and killing people for no crime other than peaceful dissent, and no authority exists with both power and inclination to stop or punish them, “guess we’ll have to start shooting back to defend ourselves” starts to look pretty reasonable. On January 25 2026 10:51 KwarK wrote:On January 25 2026 09:34 Manit0u wrote:
Oh no. Let's not to this again please... How does owning and knowing how to use the gun protect you from the government? They have tanks and drones, your pea-shooter won't help you one bit. A Christmas Carol. Lol, I see I made an impression. What I meant was that if ICE will be scared of going after people because they're armed then government will simply give them bigger guns, APCs etc. their ROE might also change to favor immediate use of force (even more than now) and it gets worse for everyone. Violence only begets violence. The 2nd amendment might've made sense back in 18th century when population was more widespread and muskets were a thing. Unfortunately it doesn't work today, especially that one of the defining attributes of a state or a country is monopoly on violence. Can't let citizens break that monopoly. There is supposedly no reason ICE should be scared when doing their titled and statutory job of enforcing immigration law, because I've been told illegal immigrants are all rainbows who behave better than citizens. And since federal court cases have largely said the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to people who aren't at least legal residents, there's no evidence to accuse illegal immigrants of breaking the law by owning or carrying guns illegally, so there would be no possibility of danger to ICE agents. The truth is if people insist on interfering with federal law enforcement, or especially if the brave leaders in Minneapolis or Minnesota literally want to fight the federal government, that just leads directly to the Insurrection Act being invoked. No need to beef up ICE again. Just the Insurrection Act. And then the leftist disruption networks would have to relocate and find a new place to interfere with federal law enforcement like Washington or California and then the cycle repeats.
A US citizen lawfully carrying a firearm while recording police in a public street is not interfering with a federal law enforcement. The ICE agent illegally assaulted an innocent bystander and then murdered him.
Fighting a tyrranical, oppressive government is the founding principal of America, and your response is martial law 😂 it's a shame the irony is lost on you.
|
|
|
On January 25 2026 07:17 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2026 07:02 Manit0u wrote:On January 25 2026 06:33 decafchicken wrote:
Well dhs posted a picture of a handgun on a car seat so that should be all the evidence they need 👍 Well, the dude had a gun permit so technically he could own a gun somewhere sometime. Is that not proof enough of his guilt and insurrectionist affiliations? 2A advocates completely silent
I've seen plenty of conservative 2A advocates that are very upset that Noem and Vance pushes anti 2A rhetoric in an attempt to justify the shooting.
|
Almost poetic: Trump is killing everything Pretti and Good about america.
|
On January 25 2026 19:21 KT_Elwood wrote:
Almost poetic: Trump is killing everything Pretti and Good about america.
I am honestly getting slightly worried that we might be living in a Discworld-esque parody setting.
|
On January 25 2026 14:52 ChristianS wrote:
I’m surprised you’re not coming better-equipped than that. There’s been pretty robust reporting that ICE is entering people’s homes without getting a warrant signed by a judge, are you asserting they’re not? Or do you just think that’s a good thing that should continue?
You avoided the question of public arrests entirely, so I will proceed assuming you are good with those. The first step would be sanctuary jurisdictions cooperating with ICE detainer requests so ICE can pick up the most dangerous when they hit the criminal justice system at the local and state level rather than having to go into communities.
We have gone from "breaking into people's homes" to entering without a warrant signed by a judge. You cannot physically get a criminal warrant for a civil offense. What you're describing is an immigration judge has signed a final order of removal, the federal government looks up a guy's address, writes a warrant, watches him go there, knocks on the door and he comes out (still absolutely fine even in the most ACLU-leaning settled case law) and they arrest him. And sometimes he doesn't come outside and so they walk inside, get him, and leave, is your point? Okay, ICE arrested hundreds of thousands of people in 2025 - what percent does your robust reporting conclude represents cases of the last?
And how can we remedy this loophole? We can't just rely on agents standing outside homes shouting "Ollie Ollie Oxen Free" to lure out people with final orders of removal. Would you like to upgrade civil immigration offenses to criminal? Perhaps pass a law mandating a system for ICE to be able to get warrants signed by federal judges even for civil immigration offenses, and then fund it and fund the judges needed. Republicans should be held to task for not doing this even though Democrats obviously forgot to do it last time when they were showing us their way of immigration enforcement. But if I know Democrat politicians like I think I do, they'd probably be ready to cooperate on it now in good faith.
On January 25 2026 14:52 ChristianS wrote:
I think the federal government should not be able to kill law-abiding citizens with no consequences, in public *or* in private. I also think posthumously deciding the person is a terrorist assassin and blasting that on all channels immediately after you killed them is despicable, and any sane government would fire people who did something like that. Do you disagree?
You're talking about the Pretti guy? Before even the feds had given any press conference, Minneapolis mayor went on TV to explain Drumpf was invading and occupying his city. Absolute inflammatory garbage designed to stir up powder kegs and cause more people to become corpses.
I think finding a LEO and lynching him the same day something tragic happens, while satisfying to some, is not the "consequences" we need as a society and like every such case there will be an investigation.
On January 25 2026 17:38 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2026 14:43 oBlade wrote:On January 25 2026 10:58 ChristianS wrote:On January 25 2026 09:34 Manit0u wrote:
Oh no. Let's not to this again please... How does owning and knowing how to use the gun protect you from the government? They have tanks and drones, your pea-shooter won't help you one bit. It doesn’t seem incoherent to me at all to say “if the system isn’t going to impose consequences on ICE, we better make them scared to break into our houses for no reason another way.” More generally, it’s pretty hard right now to say “don’t take matters into your own hands, the right way is to let the proper authorities mete out justice.” You need a warrant to go in a home. You just do. The FBI arrested 67,000 people in 2025. Did they show you and I a warrant for every one? Or probable cause? Is there a searchable mandatory public database with every warrant for every arrest? Maybe with enough innuendo and saying the FBI are breaking into people's homes and kidnapping people I can get some rubes to similarly mob the FBI until a Democrat is elected to pretend to dismantle them. After all, who invited federal agents to execute national law in states? Perhaps the FBI should only operate in the few parts of the nation that aren't states. Even if you outlawed getting people at their homes, how's public places, ChristianS? That's the only alternative. There's either public or private places. You're on board with public? If you can't get them in either then the law effectively doesn't exist until we have the invention of Star Trek teleporters. Kash Patel's FBI probably didn't in 2025, but every year prior yes. And yes, arrest warrants are public record, this is how due process and the judicial system works for exactly this reason. Theres not an if, it is ILLEGAL TO INVADE SOMEONE'S HOME WITHOUT A WARRANT SIGNED BY A JUDGE. Is your argument that it's better for nobody to feel safe at home so that there's less public arrests? Are you just a full on anti-constitutionalist?
You did not understand the question because you are in capslock hysteria, and blinders stopped you from seeing I very clearly already was on board with you need a warrant to enter a home.
The question is even in the wildest wet dreams of Democrats, where they made it illegal for ICE to enter private residences whatsoever, with or without judicial warrants, would you support nabbing people in public which is physically the only alternative? The question was unanswered by ChristianS. I suspect it will be unanswered by you as well. Probably the reason there was no answer because police arresting people in public who have broken laws passed by Congress, whom it's their job to arrest, is also some kind of police state fascism. "They're breaking into people's houses!" "okay, how about if instead-" "THEY'RE SNATCHING PEOPLE OFF THE STREETS!" Heads you win, tails I lose buddy.
Since they're public record, show me where the database is so I can see what arrests were made with missing warrants. I want to see for myself what doesn't add up. Like obviously the warrants done in Biden's time will all be in there in triplicate, so I want to see when it dropped off from 2025 and just be able to see that ICE is recording hundreds of thousands of arrests without the right warrants to back them up in this public record.
On January 25 2026 17:38 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote + On January 25 2026 12:29 Manit0u wrote:On January 25 2026 10:58 ChristianS wrote:On January 25 2026 09:34 Manit0u wrote:
Oh no. Let's not to this again please... How does owning and knowing how to use the gun protect you from the government? They have tanks and drones, your pea-shooter won't help you one bit. It doesn’t seem incoherent to me at all to say “if the system isn’t going to impose consequences on ICE, we better make them scared to break into our houses for no reason another way.” More generally, it’s pretty hard right now to say “don’t take matters into your own hands, the right way is to let the proper authorities mete out justice.” The best argument *against* political violence right now is that it would escalate the violence in a way that would hurt everybody. But when men with guns are coming into your neighbor and killing people for no crime other than peaceful dissent, and no authority exists with both power and inclination to stop or punish them, “guess we’ll have to start shooting back to defend ourselves” starts to look pretty reasonable. On January 25 2026 10:51 KwarK wrote:On January 25 2026 09:34 Manit0u wrote:
Oh no. Let's not to this again please... How does owning and knowing how to use the gun protect you from the government? They have tanks and drones, your pea-shooter won't help you one bit. A Christmas Carol. Lol, I see I made an impression. What I meant was that if ICE will be scared of going after people because they're armed then government will simply give them bigger guns, APCs etc. their ROE might also change to favor immediate use of force (even more than now) and it gets worse for everyone. Violence only begets violence. The 2nd amendment might've made sense back in 18th century when population was more widespread and muskets were a thing. Unfortunately it doesn't work today, especially that one of the defining attributes of a state or a country is monopoly on violence. Can't let citizens break that monopoly. There is supposedly no reason ICE should be scared when doing their titled and statutory job of enforcing immigration law, because I've been told illegal immigrants are all rainbows who behave better than citizens. And since federal court cases have largely said the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to people who aren't at least legal residents, there's no evidence to accuse illegal immigrants of breaking the law by owning or carrying guns illegally, so there would be no possibility of danger to ICE agents. The truth is if people insist on interfering with federal law enforcement, or especially if the brave leaders in Minneapolis or Minnesota literally want to fight the federal government, that just leads directly to the Insurrection Act being invoked. No need to beef up ICE again. Just the Insurrection Act. And then the leftist disruption networks would have to relocate and find a new place to interfere with federal law enforcement like Washington or California and then the cycle repeats. A US citizen lawfully carrying a firearm while recording police in a public street is not interfering with a federal law enforcement. The ICE agent illegally assaulted an innocent bystander and then murdered him. Fighting a tyrranical, oppressive government is the founding principal of America, and your response is martial law 😂 it's a shame the irony is lost on you.
Principle*
So your argument is people are bravely fighting a tyrannical and oppressive government by... recording them. Have to go with GH on this one.
|
It's on video from several angles, you fascist twat. ICE thugs assaulted two women for no reason. He helped one of them get up. They assaulted him, disarmed him, and executed him while he was pinned to the ground by several men. At no point did he pull out his gun.
|
Remember that when you discuss with someone like oBlade, you are discussing with someone who would likely himself shoot people protesting Trump/ICE, regardless of the legality of it - that's what fascists do, they kill political opponents to maintain power.
It really has nothing to do with immigration, law enforcement, any of it: they shoot you because you are a threat to their power, so they eliminate you and create intimidation.
You won't convince him / other fascists that this was wrong because he was filming / was not a "domestic terrorists" / any other logical argument - you won't find empathy with someone being murdered in the street by the militia - because that's what they want. That's what he would do himself - he is OK with killing people.
Fascists want to take / keep power - by using force and violence. So far they are still lying and making excuses and providing "statements" to the press. In N months they will just reply with violence and that's it.
|
On January 25 2026 19:59 VHbb wrote:
You won't convince him / other fascists that this was wrong because he was filming / was not a "domestic terrorists" / any other logical argument - you won't find empathy with someone being murdered in the street by the militia - because that's what they want. That's what he would do himself - he is OK with killing people.
Nah, he strikes me more as the voluntary informant type that will snitch to the inevitable denouncement tip line / website to have the goons snatch up his neighbours and coworkers that hurt his feelings in political arguments.
|
On January 25 2026 20:19 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2026 19:59 VHbb wrote:
You won't convince him / other fascists that this was wrong because he was filming / was not a "domestic terrorists" / any other logical argument - you won't find empathy with someone being murdered in the street by the militia - because that's what they want. That's what he would do himself - he is OK with killing people. Nah, he strikes me more as the voluntary informant type that will snitch to the inevitable denouncement tip line / website to have the goons snatch up his neighbours and coworkers that hurt his feelings in political arguments.
strength in numbers for the bullying in-group is a hell of a drug especially in the manosphere dripping from all pores with insecurity.
for the mala fide arguments to weave in GH as the "black friend" is a nice touch. Trump taught people well what works.
MAGA Communists unite - revolution in the name of capital! any day now it will trickle down to oBlade and bring true freedom to GH.
one tax cut and one migrant thrown out at a time, heck let's throw out some Americans too and due process/the rule of law. who really cares at this point?
|
oBlade is just a busy little fascist boot licker who is bang on the narrative, together with refusing to even comment on the videos and how the US Veteran citizen who had the right to bare arms was disarmed and murdered by 7 fascist pigs for the crime of trying to help a woman because he knows it looks bad.
The weasel will then, just like he saw from Trump ramble on about evil democrats or latch on to some comment where he can pedantically attack some statistic when, again, there is plenty of video evidence of ICE breaking into people's houses with no warrants because he is in the stupidest cult of all time.
If you look at the narrative from JD Vance and Miller, this is all the fault of Minnesota democrats for not rolling over for ICE, despite them doing basically nothing other then send strong words and refusing to do anything real in order to protect their brave citizens who are actually doing something.
Undocumented immigrants in:
Texas: 2,100,000
Florida: 1,600,000
Minnesota: 130,000
I wonder why Minnesota is where all this shit is going down, because it sure as shit is not about deporting dangerous illegals. Minnesota also has significantly lower crime rate then either of those states.
Like it was mentioned before, immigration is not a problem, it's a scapegoat that fascist use to demonstrate power.
|
Trump instantly declaring Alex Pretti's (sp?) death as legally justified is an own goal. He did this with the woman who tried to run over the ICE guy. In both, cases he needed to say he is "waiting for the results of the investigation" and her death was an unfortunate tragedy. It is really dumb for him to instantly respond to these events deciding the actions of the enforcement agents were correct. Justice is slow and methodical. Shotgun justice is never justice.
You will hear the Trump team constantly yap about how Minnesota is the home of $9 Billion in government money fraud. Welp, in Canada last year retailers lost $9B , yes that is a "B", to employee fraud, theft etc. So, $9 Billion sounds bad, but really, its like saying an NBA player was caught travelling or an NHL defensemen was caught hooking. Put another way: " If you're not cheatin' you're not tryin' "
source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-canadian-retailers-are-facing-a-91-billion-problem-organized-theft/
Anyhow, the government fraud is a serious issue for Minnesota, however, it is everywhere. I nail people every year robbing governments and businesses for 100s of thousands of dollars. Preventing and catching fraud is a massive and constantly growing business. Recently, I nailed a payroll clerk creating fake nurses and collecting and cashing the cheques. The org has 5000 nurses so its easy to slip a couple fake ones in there.
I said it before, and I'll say it again: "Most Adults Are Liars"
|
You're a piece of shit. She clearly did not try to run him over, you cretin.
|
On January 25 2026 20:53 maybenexttime wrote:
You're a piece of shit. She clearly did not try to run him over, you cretin.
Argument Ad hominem.
Any how, neither of us can crawl inside her mind and determine her intent. So I should correct my statement. She drove towards the ICE Agent and struck him. What her intent was: no one knows. Was she at minimum reckless... absolutely. Was she attempting to kill the ICE Agent in that heated moment? No one knows.
This is another reason why major world leaders like Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau shouldn't mouth off right after crimes may or may not have been committed.
|
On January 25 2026 20:56 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2026 20:53 maybenexttime wrote:
You're a piece of shit. She clearly did not try to run him over, you cretin. Argument Ad hominem.
That's not an argumentum ad hominem. He wasn't saying your statement was wrong because you're "a piece of shit"; he was saying your statement is wrong because she clearly didn't try to run him over, and then he also called you a piece of shit. I'm not saying the name-calling is warranted, but name-calling isn't ad hominem unless it's being used as the dismissive reason why your argument is wrong.
|
She was at minimum reckless. She is running around following ICE Operations and blocking the road. When ordered by armed enforcement officers to exit her vehicle she refused. Do these actions cross over the line into criminality?... prolly. She prolly would've been determined to be criminally reckless for her actions in a court of law. That's at minimum.
On January 25 2026 21:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
That's not an argumentum ad hominem. He wasn't saying your statement was wrong because you're "a piece of shit"; he was saying your statement is wrong because she clearly didn't try to run him over, and then he also called you a piece of shit. I'm not saying the name-calling is warranted, but name-calling isn't ad hominem unless it's being used as the dismissive reason why your argument is wrong.
no i just see things differently. rage on man.
|
On January 25 2026 20:56 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2026 20:53 maybenexttime wrote:
You're a piece of shit. She clearly did not try to run him over, you cretin. Argument Ad hominem. Any how, neither of us can crawl inside her mind and determine her intent. So I should correct my statement. She drove towards the ICE Agent and struck him. What her intent was: no one knows. Was she at minimum reckless... absolutely. Was she attempting to kill the ICE Agent in that heated moment? No one knows. This is another reason why major world leaders like Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau shouldn't mouth off right after crimes may or may not have been committed.
If you watched the video without being absolutely committed to finding that she was somewhat at fault, you would see like every reasonable person that there were no way on earth she was trying to run him over or kill him. Especially if you listen to the interaction beforehand.
I understand that it all has gone so far that acknowledging what’s in front of your eyes is probably very uncomfortable, but having intellectual integrity will never make you look worse. Repeating talking points of people who lie like they breath, in the other hand makes you look either stupid or like a compete ghoul. I don’t think you are either.
|
On January 25 2026 21:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2026 20:56 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On January 25 2026 20:53 maybenexttime wrote:
You're a piece of shit. She clearly did not try to run him over, you cretin. Argument Ad hominem. Any how, neither of us can crawl inside her mind and determine her intent. So I should correct my statement. She drove towards the ICE Agent and struck him. What her intent was: no one knows. Was she at minimum reckless... absolutely. Was she attempting to kill the ICE Agent in that heated moment? No one knows. This is another reason why major world leaders like Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau shouldn't mouth off right after crimes may or may not have been committed. If you watched the video without being absolutely committed to finding that she was somewhat at fault, you would see like every reasonable person that there were no way on earth she was trying to run him over or kill him. Especially if you listen to the interaction beforehand. I understand that it all has gone so far that acknowledging what’s in front of your eyes is probably very uncomfortable, but having intellectual integrity will never make you look worse. Repeating talking points of people who lie like they breath, in the other hand makes you look either stupid or like a compete ghoul. I don’t think you are either.
Again, she is running around following ICE Operations and obstructing them. That is at minimum reckless and could be criminal. She moved her vehicle towards the ICE Agent and struck him. If she were not behaving recklessly none of this happens.
On January 25 2026 21:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Repeating talking points of people who lie like they breath
this is my own perspective. i frequently get called a "far right parrot" on here. i don't hear the far right promoting Bob Rae... saying Barry Scheck is an American hero ... or offering the perspective I do on this matter. I don't hear "far right wingers" calling for Trump to shut his mouth and say "i'm waiting for the investigation before i can comment".
So, nah, I'm am not repeating talking points of others ... and I never do.
It is fascinating to watch the people in Trump's inner circle who do a careful job of not talking about either Minnesota incident. Any of Trump's sycophants publicly agreeing with Trump on these 2 issues is limiting their career. Trump's smartest team members are not talking about either Minnesota incident.
|
On January 25 2026 20:40 Jankisa wrote:
oBlade is just a busy little fascist boot licker who is bang on the narrative, together with refusing to even comment on the videos and how the US Veteran citizen who had the right to bare arms was disarmed and murdered by 7 fascist pigs for the crime of trying to help a woman because he knows it looks bad.
You know it's poignant how you've refused to comment on the death of Tiger Gutierrez for years, who was killed by a drunk driving illegal immigrant with no driver's license.
On January 25 2026 20:40 Jankisa wrote:
Undocumented immigrants in:
Texas: 2,100,000
Florida: 1,600,000
Minnesota: 130,000
I wonder why Minnesota is where all this shit is going down, because it sure as shit is not about deporting dangerous illegals. Minnesota also has significantly lower crime rate then either of those states.
Like it was mentioned before, immigration is not a problem, it's a scapegoat that fascist use to demonstrate power.
Because Texas and Florida cooperate. Both the jurisdictions of Minneapolis/Minnesota do not cooperate, and it's in Minnesota that certain residents organize themselves to obstruct federal agents. This always circles back to this and you cannot still not pretend to get it.
How do you still think this is an insightful question. Why is there repeatedly only news of conflict between ICE and local people/authorities in the jurisdictions where local people and authorities do not cooperate, or actively obstruct ICE? What could possibly be going on here?
Here's an ICE operation in Minnesota arresting an illegal who's a sex offender.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ice-confirms-arrest-somali-illegal-immigrant-sex-offender-minneapolis
Normal people don't believe they should have stayed home that day because the crime rates between several wide states, that all contain millions of people distributed differently, are higher or lower than one another.
On January 25 2026 19:33 maybenexttime wrote:
It's on video from several angles, you fascist twat. ICE thugs assaulted two women for no reason. He helped one of them get up. They assaulted him, disarmed him, and executed him while he was pinned to the ground by several men. At no point did he pull out his gun.
While we're "at no point"ing at no point did I say Pretti should be shot or killed. You're just in a reflexive state of assume and reply. Again. At no point did I say Pretti should be shot or killed. You can't find it because I don't believe it. You just wanted to derail.
Okay "ICE thugs." To go from that to executed, you have to explain: Why did they execute him only? Not the two women? They really didn't like him? Let's think further.
When you have groups of people using their cars to block agents, to crash into agents, lobbing things at agents and their vehicles, blaring whistles constantly - is this environment going to make it more or less likely for bad things to happen? More likely. Does that mean someone should go home? Yes. Which: The people who have to be there to execute the laws, or the people bothering them? Hmm.
Every gun owner, especially CCW, knows avoid being anywhere near even the appearance of a scuffle with police. Especially CCW. You want the responsibility of a CCW, you watch everything you do. You don't touch a drink. You avoid conflict and deescalate and leave always. He didn't avoid. Plus he left his CCW license and ID at home. Already, don't do that. Now if you do force an encounter, normal people know the first move is to not move, or hands in a visible place and "I'm carrying." He didn't. That still doesn't mean he deserves to be shot. But this takes us back to the earlier question of why fascism, or fate, should target him specifically and not execute anyone else that day, or the day before, or in LA, or in Chicago, and so on. Then you have to look at what happened specifically.
Here's the facts: Someone disarmed him. Someone said he had a gun. Someone shot him. There's one shot, a pause, and several shots in the video.
Of all these what's more likely than them wantonly executing him in the middle of their operation to catch illegal criminals is any combination of:
1) One officer said he has a gun, so another shot him, then another shot him more
2) One officer said he has a gun, the same or another disarmed him, the gun went off, so another shot him
3) One officer said he has a gun, the same or another disarmed him, then that officer fired it accidentally/negligently, so another mistook that as the suspect firing and shot him
So you go from "they" like 6 people to probably one, maybe two who fired.
+ Show Spoiler +4) He somehow used one of his hands to access or drop that or a second weapon - I think his ex-wife said he at least owned more than one gun - either firing it deliberately or causing it to go off accidentally (Not likely at all from what I see he was successfully disarmed, but in the interest of logical completeness and admitting that I'm not spending all my days CSIing these grainy videos, mentioned) -> Any agent reacts to that and shoots him
The shooting itself is cause for investigation. As always. Some of the possibilities of what happened I've just listed even warrant charges. But that they shot him just because he's a leftist, while not impossible, is a childishly premature conclusion given the myriad unshot leftists.
|
On January 25 2026 20:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Trump instantly declaring Alex Pretti's (sp?) death as legally justified is an own goal. He did this with the woman who tried to run over the ICE guy. In both, cases he needed to say he is "waiting for the results of the investigation" and her death was an unfortunate tragedy. It is really dumb for him to instantly respond to these events deciding the actions of the enforcement agents were correct. Justice is slow and methodical. Shotgun justice is never justice.
You don't get how these people work. There is exactly one thing they look at when judging a situation. Which sides were the people on.
ICE is on Trumps side, and you gotta protect your side. So the basic conclusion is whatever ICE does is correct and justified.
And they say this out loud immediately so their team recognizes it immediately, and doesn't get any strange ideas like actually looking at facts or whatever. Else they might start developing wrongthink.
They are fascists. They don't believe in slow and methodical justice or nuance. They believe in immediate retribution. They need a simple world with simple lines where their side is always good and the other side is always in the wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
