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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wizard of Ozz
  • Start date Start date
Findthetone1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s not the reasonable man standard. Which I assure you they are not obligated to satisfy. If they feel threatened they feel threatened. There’s simply no precedent for them having to prove it was reasonable to a prosecutor or a jury.


I should not say prove it was reasonable. More correctly it is prove that a reasonable man could believe he was under threat.
 
Floyd Eye said:
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.
Click to expand...
Very well put.
 
Floyd Eye said:
That’s not the reasonable man standard. Which I assure you they are not obligated to satisfy. If they feel threatened they feel threatened. There’s simply no precedent for them having to prove it was reasonable to a prosecutor or a jury.
Click to expand...
What? You DO know critical incidents are looked at by the prosecutor and often taken before and Grand Jury, right?
Ans reasonable IS a standard by which things are looked at.
 
Findthetone1 said:
What? You DO know critical incidents are looked at by the prosecutor and often taken before and Grand Jury, right?
Ans reasonable IS a standard by which things are looked at.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they are still not held to that standard. And that also doesn’t happen automatically like it would in a civilian shooting.
 
Floyd Eye said:
Yes, but they are still not held to that standard. And that also doesn’t happen automatically like it would in a civilian shooting.
Click to expand...
No, they are held to a higher standard based on training and experience. Cases are heard depending on the length and/or complexity of the investigation.
Civilian cases can run the same route.
 
I looked up reasonable officer standard vs reasonable person standard and this is what Google gave me.
Of course what's on paper doesn't always reflect what happens in reality.

1769625257012.png

1769625268829.png
 
Floyd Eye said:
The one where one of them shot a guy who didn’t have a gun in his hand and the other shot the same guy 10 more times.
Click to expand...
Did one guy actually shoot 10 times? or was it 5 guys each firing twice?
I saw something about Pretti being shot 10 times but never saw any details on it.
 
1769625786592.png



This is an important factor. But does not negate the fact they can and are still held liable for their actions.
And I assure you, the word reasonable is used often when it comes to use of force.
 
MadAsAHatter said:
Did one guy actually shoot 10 times? or was it 5 guys each firing twice?
I saw something about Pretti being shot 10 times but never saw any details on it.
Click to expand...
I didn't see that either. And no one knows where this is going to end up yet.
 
Findthetone1 said:
View attachment 431010


This is an important factor. But does not negate the fact they can and are still held liable for their actions.
And I assure you, the word reasonable is used often when it comes to use of force.
Click to expand...
Sure they can, but the fact that they very nearly never are even in some of the most egregious cases tells you the standard is lower.
 
Findthetone1 said:
I didn't see that either. And no one knows where this is going to end up yet.
Click to expand...
I’m going to predict the officers face no charges. It appears to me that the officer standard has been satisfied. Particularly in light of the felonious behavior of the nurse and the fact that he has a history of the same felonious behavior and decided to escalate it this time by being armed.
 
Floyd Eye said:
Sure they can, but the fact that they very nearly never are even in some of the most egregious cases tells you the standard is lower.
Click to expand...
Such as?
Again, I'm not saying there aren't incidents that aren't fucked up. You are still talking about human beings.
What's been lowered is the expectations of competence and ability just to put bodies on the street. You can thank people like our resident GreenGayGuy and his "social just-us warriors" for that shit. Defund the police.....what the fuck did people think was going to happen?
 
Findthetone1 said:
View attachment 431010


This is an important factor. But does not negate the fact they can and are still held liable for their actions.
And I assure you, the word reasonable is used often when it comes to use of force.
Click to expand...
Think of it this way. Two armed civilians. One gets shot, the other never pulls his weapon.

A cop and a civilian. Both armed. Civilian gets shot even though he never pulls his weapon.

Two different outcomes to be sure.
 
Findthetone1 said:
Such as?
Again, I'm not saying there aren't incidents that aren't fucked up. You are still talking about human beings.
What's been lowered is the expectations of competence and ability just to put bodies on the street. You can thank people like our resident GreenGayGuy and his "social just-us warriors" for that shit. Defund the police.....what the fuck did people think was going to happen?
Click to expand...
I agree with this.

Do you really need me to google and list the many incidents of cops shooting unarmed civilians and not being charged with murder ? Come on dude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top