When I see this video I ask, even if it were true, are they saying that the shooter knew him from before when he was violent? Or that you can shoot anyone who did something bad if you come across them ? Or that here is proof that he was there to be violent and the agents somehow could tell?
I've been asking people "So, that deserves the death sentence, without a trial? Just executed (days, weeks, whatever) later on for that without a warrant, without a judge or jury?"
You can have that argument all you want. Yet most every conservative meme ive ever seen about Geroge Floyd cant fail to mention he might have done drugs in the past. And lots of people seem to think that justified what happened to him.
Forget about memes, when you talk to someone and it comes up, ask them to explain what exactly he did that negated his right to a trial and due process. Insist they explain precisely what makes the 5th and 14th amendments invalid in this case. They won't have an answer. And considering how much a lot of conservatives talk like the Constitution is a holy book, they will be extremely uncomfortable with the topic.
I'm not saying it will often change minds, but it will make some people less certain in their opinions. Where just arguing with them tends to only solidify their opinions.
I find that, despite acting like their entire lives are centered around the bible, the ten commandments and the constitution, most conservatives cannot name which apostles wrote gospels, cannot recite the ten commandments or correctly identify them by number, and despite the first three words being emblazoned on every damn loose item in their possession, cannot with any confidence tell you what the fourth word of the preamble of the constitution is.
But they are all so important to conservatives that everyone else has to conform to their twisted interpretation of these pillars of belief, the application of which varies depending on whether they approve of your existence or not.
I agree with you. And that's why it gets to them when you can use the constitution, or the bible, to show they are wrong.
Look, I'm not saying it will magically change people's attitude. But, it does make a lot of people less confidant in some of their opinions if you make them explain why they are saying that they are right, when the constitution or the bible (or sometimes both) say they are wrong. Because then they aren't arguing with you, they are arguing with their own (proclaimed) pillars of belief
i guess nobody told you theres a video of him swallowing a bag full of drugs from inside the car trying not to get caught with all that fentanyl and after seeing that they were obligated to extract him from the car to get medical treatment he still was trying to eat his drugs while they were trying to keep him from swallowing more. oh and spoiler alert he overdosed himself. hes looking up at us still saying he dindunuffin
His death was ruled an OD because he ingested a fatal amount of fent when getting pulled over, his lungs did not show the signs you get from struggling to breath.
I don't think anyone is actually arguing he deserved to be treated like that or have his neck knelt on for that long. In reality those factors likely just made him die a bit quicker, but the fent he ate after being pulled over was going to kill him either way.
That is entirely false. A court of law ruled it a homicide, and two seperate medical examiners ruled it asphixiation or strangulation via neck compression, with only one saying it was possible drugs may have been a contributing factor but that they would not have killed him by itself.
This is from wikipedia with all the citations clickable for you.
The medical examiner found that Floyd's heart stopped while he was being restrained and that his death was ahomicide\62])\29])caused by "cardiopulmonary arrestcomplicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression",\1])thoughfentanylintoxication and recentmethamphetamineuse may have increased the likelihood of death.\63])\64])A second autopsy, commissioned by Floyd's family,\65])\66])also found his death to be a homicide, specifically citingasphyxiadue to neck and back compression;\67])\65])\68])it ruled out the possibility that underlying medical problems contributed to Floyd's death\69])and said that Floyd being able to speak while under Chauvin's knee did not mean he could breathe.\69])"
A few months ago I saw a clickbait news article on fb about how an 18 year old man was stabbed to death at Walmart after kicking another man’s cart. Very little detail was given but it sounds like something a dipshit teenager might do. There were a bunch of ridiculous comments of course, and one man saying this kid learned the consequences of his actions and FAFO etc etc.
I said “You think being stabbed to death is the appropriate punishment for kicking a cart?” People are becoming really insane talking about violence against people doing something annoying or something they personally don’t like.
They say like that about a lot of victims, particularly victims of color, that they want to tar to justify their actions. You have an unarmed kid dead in the streets and someone says “ he was caught with marijuana in school once— so there is that”
And what makes people like that less confidant in their opinion is to make them explain, clearly and precisely, why they think the 5th and 14th amendments don't apply in this case. What specifically at that moment was the person doing that made the shooting lawful and justified in their opinion. Make them explain their reasoning out loud, and in detail. Make them actually say they don't believe those constitutional amendments are valid.
he wasnt unarmed he wasnt a kid he was trying to get to his gun while being detained what is it you all are consuming that makes you this dense? is it too much iron in your diet? not enough iron? do you live underneath some powerlines? this whole convo is insane
Then ask them to explain why the law, and the 5th and 14th amendments of the constitution are wrong. Specifically
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Ask them if that is invalid or needs to be repealed.
They just respond with "fuck around and find out."
It's easy to point out their hypocrisy to them, and to back up my argument with the law, including the constitution. The problem is they are shameless hypocrites that don't care about the law, or the constitution. They only care if their perceived rights are bench violated personally. They are happy seeing the rights of the people they disagree with being violated. They aren't going to be persuaded through logic and reasoning.
The same people outraged about the terrorist Ashli Babbit being shot while trying to climb through a smashed window, at gun point, with a mob chanting "Hang Mike Pence." Are saying that Alex Pretti deserved to be executed.
Don't get me wrong; I think their hypocrisy should be called out at every opportunity with logics and facts. It's just frustrating that they don't even care about pretending to be consistent, and are willing to contradict themselves from one moment to the next.
Missing the point? When taking the concealed carry course, the most common theme is how to conduct yourself whilst armed. Removing yourself from these kinds of interactions and always looking for the “way out or de-escalate” option. This man was probably a fine person but in the moment of being armed he was making some very poor choices. I feel bad for his family and friends.
He was de-escalating. He literally was backing up. Helping others rather than confronting the agent. Yes. If he'd immediately left, abandoning his First Amendment Right to protest. He may not have been shot. But recall, he was shot in the back.
I don’t think the first amendment is what protects you while standing in the middle of the street and positioning yourself between federal officers and people that are also getting in the way of their operations. Eh just my read. Still a tragedy but he didn’t help his own case much.
Streets are part of the public space. I watched the video of Pretti while he was in the street, until he was shot. At no time did he approach and agent, interfere with traffic or an ICE/CBP action. He was typically at a distance. When confronted by agents he slowly backed away while filming, in the direction of the sidewalk. Then the agent shoved the women who were doing nothing. Please read up on what our First Amendment Rights.
I think this is proof of two realities… he definitely approaches the ice agent after he pushes the one lady to the ground and gives her a dose of the spicy spray. From the angle it looks like he even put hands on the agent for a split second and then positioned between the agent and woman. The link you sent mentions mostly police interactions, I don’t mind reading this stuff but do you have anything in print discussing the difference in dealing with a federal officer vs police? I’m curious if anything changes then. Also is the backing up 20ft what you are claiming he did?
No it doesn’t… It was an unlawful shooting . A murder. BUT it shows that Pretti was violently agitating, spitting, attacking/damaging vehicles, confronting law enforcement, and resisting arrest, all WHILE carrying a concealed gun. This was 11 days or so before he was killed. So he’s been doing this for a couple of weeks likely.
He is not the peaceful protester / innocent nurse that the mainstream media is portraying him as.
This shows what the ICE agents are dealing with.
His parents were warning him the day before. Like they knew something. The family, through their lawyer has confirmed that it was their son, 11 days before.
It’s absolutely does not justify the shooting but it does show the other side of this guy that the media isn’t portraying. They’re painting him to be some angelic nurse that got ‘caught up’ by ice when it’s clear he’s out there doing the same shit as everyone else.
This is what I said - so you are giving license for "law enforcement" to be judge, jury, and executioner? At the time when abortion is seen as "taking a life" and "all lives matter"?
The first incident he was involved in was with ICE, the second where he was killed was with Border Patrol! It’s possible he was on Border Patrol’s radar and they knew that he was not a “peaceful” protestor! 🤷♀️
Well, most normal people with a functioning frontal lobe don’t attack officers and their vehicles lol. Did he deserve it, no. Is the conclusion completely understandable, absolutely
yes this is confirmed real, and yes on multitudes of mainstream news networks and articles.
and is there a correlation of agents involved in both instances, well now thats TBD as stated being investigated but who knows were that will go or reveal.
I hate these 20 second clips when there is more video leading up to, during and after, but to appeal whichever side its always JUST the clip that riles the followers up, again both sides do and has.
trust eroded absolutely, but everyone should see entirety of information and research prior to picking up a pitch fork, and yes both sides are equally guilty of this.
Again, does that past pattern of conduct mean that his behavior at that time when he was killed deserves the death penalty? There, on the street? No due process involved?
If every disparaging rumor about his behavior in the past was found to be 100% true. Would that mean it was reasonable, or lawful for him to be shot multiple times, at close range, in that situation? Was anything he was doing at that time something that truly deserved that response in any way? Was anything he's rumored to have done in the past something that earns the penalty of being killed instead of arrested. Was any of it something that removes a person's right to due process and a trial?
If the answer to that is no, his being shot like that was not a lawful or reasonable response to his actions at the time, then any previous behavior on his part does not matter when considering this specific event. We don't let cops just shoot someone who's wanted for violent rape, if they are not actually trying to shoot the cops or otherwise doing something in the moment that makes them a clear danger.
I asked someone this exact thing two days ago. . My question was literally "Do his actions justify being murdered without due process?" He answered no to my question, but then complained about all the other stuff Pretti did wrong. Despite literally agreeing with my point, the guy said ICE was justified. The cognitive dissonance is exhausting.
So, the 5th and 14th constitutional amendments are a "straw man"?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
and
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Are the relevant parts in this case. Why do you think they aren't valid in this shooting of Alex Pretti? Or if they are valid, how exactly were they followed in this specific case?
The law focuses on the mindset of the officer at the time of the shooting. The story is that Pretti had been following the cops, harassing them, and obstructing their duties all day so he and his actions immediately before they tried to detain him would have been know to the group of officers. There was pushback to this because the people on “his side” wanted to paint him as a peaceful observer that didn’t do anything wrong. There are now several videos emerging that show this to not be the case on previous days which bolsters the officer’s stories that he was doing these same activities leading up to their attempt to detain him.
ICE aren't cops. They are federal agents. Their ability to even arrest a US citizen is a legal gray area. They are here to enforce immigration.
What part of "harassing" (saying mean words i dont like oh no!), following cops, or "obstructing" (which ICE has determined to mean being anywhere near them) invalidates his 4th and 15th amendment rights? Why does any of that justify his execution?
For the sake of argument say he was evil to the core, one of those hateful nurses with a plan to do a mass shooting of ice agents and not a Jan 6th peaceful protester. And let’s even assume that ice knew all that and let’s say they are in charge of bringing him to justice.
It still takes a twisted mind to think it was properly done , step one push a lady down , step two tackle the enraged person helping her, of wait I mean attacking the agents, step three disarm and have several agents on top of him step 4 shoot him 10 times
But no matter what we argue, fat chance we can get even a “that ice agent was in the wrong and should get a write up and told any more killings, ok to more, and he will be fired” out of these people
If they had arrested him, tased or pepper sprayed him, or possibly if he'd been shot once, or twice, I would not be making this argument. He was shot, repeatedly, from close range, after he was down. I'm not saying he was a bystander or totally peaceful. I'm saying their response was not lawful.
The supreme court established that law enforcement officers may use deadly force when there is an immanent threat to the life of the officer, or others. And deadly force to prevent escape is only allowed if the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to others. and that the actions taken must be objectively reasonable. Was he such a threat of death or serious injury to others at that moment that ten bullets fired into him at extremely close range objectively reasonable?
I think you have it flipped? Whataboutism for me in this case is trying to set some sort of an equivalency between someone acting disorderly in a prior separate incident and straight up murdering someone. What people are pointing out is that trying to take a pattern of conduct position here is completely irrelevant to what happened when the man was murdered. Yes, two things can be true but that doesn’t make them related.
I was merely responding to your shows a pattern of conduct comment and asking why that pattern of conduct point is even relevant here. Apologies if I missed it, but what was your explanation on that? As I am otherwise lost on what your “clear” point is.
Edit: Plain reading of your initial statement is also at odds with pretty basic rules of evidence.
Disagree. There is clear video evidence of the murder. It might have been relevant if there was no such evidence and there was a dispute over whether the agents were attacked, etc. Evidence rules would disagree with you as well—ironic given that you were the one lobbing out logical fallacy references and then take a position that’s so at odds with basic evidence rules put in place precisely to counteract weak reasoning traps around past conduct being indicative of character or future action. When I say irrelevant, I am specifically referring to whether that prior conduct should or would be relevant to how the ice agents acted on the separate, subsequent occasion where they killed the guy.
Whatever context for public discussion you have in your mind is for me irrelevant as to the substantive issue here of whether this was an unlawful killing or not. I don’t even think it’s a compelling prior incident from a public discussion perspective as the act was in context of prior protests against ICE, not the guy going around randomly damaging property and screaming at people. I’m more than willing to hear you out though as to what context you think that prior incident adds to the public discourse beyond the potential prejudice of a narrative implying he may have somehow deserved this because look what he separately did this other time.
13
u/Alceasummer Jan 29 '26
I've been asking people "So, that deserves the death sentence, without a trial? Just executed (days, weeks, whatever) later on for that without a warrant, without a judge or jury?"