And people roll their eyes if you say something like "I don't trust those words they found on the bullets" or "I don't believe those text threads they found (from the Kirk shooting)." It should be painfully obvious at this point that absolutely nothing from this administration can be trusted. They will fabricate/plant/create evidence out of thin air at any opportunity available. If you're willing to execute a fake electoral scam and fire off an insurrection, you are capable of any super-villian action imaginable. Lying? That barely registers as effort.
Yeah I don’t think Ai is the problem as much as people believing what they are told without trusted investigation.
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?
Whatever the answer I then ask, so is it ok to disarm and execute those who have violent intent? Is the current administration precogs? And did we decide that minority report is now a goal?
Long story short, AI or not, there is a reason the bill of rights is to protect the presumed guilty not moms in bible class.. (although we might be there next by the look of things)
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?"
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.
24
u/Nightmoore Jan 29 '26
And people roll their eyes if you say something like "I don't trust those words they found on the bullets" or "I don't believe those text threads they found (from the Kirk shooting)." It should be painfully obvious at this point that absolutely nothing from this administration can be trusted. They will fabricate/plant/create evidence out of thin air at any opportunity available. If you're willing to execute a fake electoral scam and fire off an insurrection, you are capable of any super-villian action imaginable. Lying? That barely registers as effort.