Crazy Leftist Lesbollah Dyke Tried To Run-Over ICE Officers In MN

[TheGreatGreen]

No one is arguing that point you fucking dumbass.
Yes he did have every right to bring his firearm and peacefully protest
We're saying as a result of his dumb choices and actions of fighting with LE resulted in his death.
Same as with that Renee Good woman.

And I'm saying he was murdered unjustifiably, that his actions, even during the scuffle, did not warrant his death, ESPECIALLY because he had been disarmed.

"Don't fight with ICE because they're a bunch of untrained terrified dumbasses who weren't able to do anything better and will kill you with impunity the first chance they get" isn't the valiant upstanding argument you might think it is.

 

[Floyd Eye]

That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. I live in a state with Castle Doctrine, not that duty to retreat nonsense. My State's laws while not exact are very similar to the standards LE is held to. So that's the way my though automatically goes. It takes me a minute to register if someone is on that same page or not.

My state is extended castle, no duty to retreat as well. And constitutional carry.

Both of our standards are totally different than what LE is held to bro.

 

[Floyd Eye]

And I'm saying he was murdered unjustifiably, that his actions, even during the scuffle, did not warrant his death.

"Don't fight with ICE because they're a bunch of untrained dumbasses who weren't able to do anything better and will kill you with impunity the first chance they get" isn't the great argument you think it is.

Any cop dude. Not just ice. This would have happened even quicker if it were regular cops.

And thinking that and getting the Supreme Court to agree with you are two wildly different things.

 

[Floyd Eye]

And I'm saying he was murdered unjustifiably, that his actions, even during the scuffle, did not warrant his death, ESPECIALLY because he had been disarmed.

"Don't fight with ICE because they're a bunch of untrained terrified dumbasses who weren't able to do anything better and will kill you with impunity the first chance they get" isn't the valiant upstanding argument you might think it is.

Do you understand that fighting with a federal agent is a felony with a minimum 8 year prison sentence ?

 

[MadAsAHatter]

My state is extended castle, no duty to retreat. Too. And constitutional carry.

Both of our standards are totally different than what LE is held to bro.

I get that. I was trying to say letter of the law the way it's written. I damn well if it was the exact same situation I and a LEO was in that resulted in lethal force it would be much much harder to prove my innocence. In that aspect standards aren't the same.

 

[Robostyle]

Hey, why does the 2nd amendment exist? What's the full text, exactly? I'd love for you to copy and paste the whole thing here.

Having the right to bear arms to protect yourself from law enforcement that oversteps its bounds is LITERALLY the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment. It was written and added to the Constitution shortly after the US separated itself from a tyrannical government that tried to use its own force to command us into obedience. Alex Pretti had EVERY right to bring his fully licensed gun, for which he had a permit. No matter what you think, the law is not "you have the right to bear arms except for when conservatives or LEOs don't want you to."

You're not fucking getting it still. Much like the 1st amendment, there are limitations to the 2nd.
But it's obvious you know fuck all about firearms laws.
"Law enforcement" and "tyrannical government" are not the same thing.
But you see them as the same, it's obvious you hate cops and that you support illegal immigration.
Do you own any firearms?

 

[MadAsAHatter]

Do you own any firearms?

Wait your turn!!!
Greeny still hasn't answered my request to prove this wrong.

This is completely incorrect.
An officer does not have to wait until an armed suspect "pulls their gun" to use deadly force. Under the Supreme Court standard of objective reasonableness, an officer may use deadly force if they have probable cause to believe a suspect poses an imminent threat of serious physical harm or death to themselves or others. This is all well documented in law.

 

[Robostyle]

And I'm saying he was murdered unjustifiably, that his actions, even during the scuffle, did not warrant his death, ESPECIALLY because he had been disarmed.

What about his backup gun?
You are avoiding this question.

 

[Floyd Eye]

I get that. I was trying to say letter of the law the way it's written. I damn well if it was the exact same situation I and a LEO was in that resulted in lethal force it would be much much harder to prove my innocence. In that aspect standards aren't the same.

Cops don’t have to satisfy the reasonable man standard. The fact that this guy got physical and had a gun is all they need.

 

[Findthetone1]

To be clear, I wouldn't do what he did either. I'm also not suicidal. However, I think the fact that you'd have to be suicidal to even "have a gun holstered around a cop" is what's wrong. Cops or any law enforcement should not have the right to be judge, jury, and executioner with no accountability. Just because somebody has a gun doesn't mean a cop has the right to just say "THEY'RE COMIN' RIGHT FOR US" South Park style and start blasting.

Christ, you were at the top of your drama class, weren't you?

 

[Findthetone1]

Any cop dude. Not just ice. This would have happened even quicker if it were regular cops.

That's a pretty big assumption. Why do you say this?

 

[Floyd Eye]

A helpful way to think about the Pretti case and why the 2A argument misses the point:

First, let’s get something clarified: whether or not Pretti was carrying legally is not the central issue - and even if he wasn't carrying legally, that alone would not justify the use of deadly force.

The question is what happened once police engaged. At that moment, the relevant legal framework changes.

Gun-carry law governs possession. Use-of-force law governs encounters.

Once officers lawfully engage and issue commands, the 2nd Amendment no longer controls the analysis. From that point on, it’s about officer safety, compliance, and resistance.

Here are some common objections and why they fail:

“He was legally carrying.” Legal carrying addresses who may possess a firearm. It does not grant the right to ignore lawful commands or remain armed during an enforcement encounter.

“The 2nd Amendment protects him here.” The 2A protects possession, not conduct during police interactions. Courts have not regarded it as immunity from lawful commands or use-of-force standards.

“He didn’t intend harm.” Intent is not the determining legal factor. Use-of-force laws focus on objective threats and resistance, not subjective motives.

“But he was just filming or protesting.” Once an individual involves themselves in an active law enforcement situation, officers have the authority to control the scene. Filming or protesting does not supersede commands or safety protocols.

“CCWs mean you can carry anywhere.” A CCW is not a blank check. In fact, it’s a regulated permission that comes with obligations: avoid confrontation, comply with the police, and de-escalate. It is meant to prevent armed interference, not encourage it.

One final important point:
Border Patrol agents are obligated to be present and have a right to return home. Pretti was under no obligation to be there, especially while armed. You may oppose immigration policies or critique federal enforcement actions. However, once an individual resists lawful commands while armed during an enforcement operation, the discussion shifts away from gun rights or politics. It becomes a matter of use-of-force law.

This isn’t a matter of ideology; it’s how the law functions in practice.

 

[Findthetone1]

Cops don’t have to satisfy the reasonable man standard. The fact that this guy got physical and had a gun is all they need.

Sorry, brother. That's just not the case.

 

[Floyd Eye]

That's a pretty big assumption. Why do you say this?

Because I know a shit ton of cops. And with little or no chance cameras are on them ? You fight with them and you have a gun, your ass is getting shot.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Sorry, brother. That's just not the case.

It is, but I’m willing to listen to your argument.

 

[MadAsAHatter]

And I'm saying he was murdered unjustifiably, that his actions, even during the scuffle, did not warrant his death, ESPECIALLY because he had been disarmed.

"Don't fight with ICE because they're a bunch of untrained terrified dumbasses who weren't able to do anything better and will kill you with impunity the first chance they get" isn't the valiant upstanding argument you might think it is.

I know you just not going to get it. The law doesn't care about your feeling. Precedent for this kind of event has been well established by the Supreme Court.
This doesn't change the fact that it will likely be found to have been a justified use of lethal force.
An officer can use lethal force if they believe a suspect is an imminent threat. They don't even need to see a gun an can rely on the word of a fellow officer. The guy had a weapon on him, was initially fighting with officers, struggled while being detained, and an officer said "gun, gun". All this serves as evidence that this would be a justified use of lethal force as stated.

No, Pretti didn't deserve to lose his life and yes, this was a tragic event. I even agree that to an extent some of the agents may have overreacted. But this was most certainly not an execution by Trump's gestapo in cold blood like you've been crying.

 

[Findthetone1]

Because I know a shit ton of cops. And with little or no chance cameras are on them ? You fight with them and you have a gun, your ass is getting shot.

A. There are cameras everywhere these days. You know that.
B. Knowing them is not qualification to speak on it.
We agree on a lot of things, man, but this is just not true. I'm not saying there are not ill or undertrained police officers and that people don't fuck up, but you are generalizing and that paints an incorrect picture.

 

[Findthetone1]

It is, but I’m willing to listen to your argument.

Police officers are required to articulate every action when it comes to critical incident up to and including what the threat was and why they felt the need to use lethal force. They don't just squeeze the trigger and walk away.

 

[MadAsAHatter]

Cops don’t have to satisfy the reasonable man standard. The fact that this guy got physical and had a gun is all they need.

Okay, I see what you're getting at reasonable man standard for citizens VS reasonable officer standards for law enforcement. They're similar but not the same.

 

[Floyd Eye]

A. There are cameras everywhere these days. You know that.
B. Knowing them is not qualification to speak on it.
We agree on a lot of things, man, but this is just not true. I'm not saying there are not ill or undertrained police officers and that people don't fuck up, but you are generalizing and that paints an incorrect picture.

Clearly I can’t speak for all cops, but it’s like when I said the other day that one of them yelled “ Gun”. When that happens and there’s a fight going on 100% of the time someone’s getting shot. I can’t prove that either.