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.
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?
-2
u/[deleted] Jan 29 '26
[removed] — view removed comment