re: Alex Pretti was known to Federal officers

quote:

---

It is unclear how Pretti first came to the attention of federal authorities, but sources told CNN that about a week before his death, he suffered a broken rib when a group of federal officers tackled him while he was Protestin their attempt to detain other individuals.

---

They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

You can try to explain how it's different to ATF when they show up. Just comply.

quote:

---

a group of federal officers tackled him while he was protesting their attempt to detain other individuals.

---

That's some Olympic-level disingenuous verbiage and propaganda right there.

Obviously they didn't tackle him for "protesting". The dude got physical with federal LEO and was subdued with extreme prejudice. But some people are so incapable of reading between the lines when the truth is so visible beneath a transparent sheet of propaganda.

quote:

---

tackled him while he was protesting their attempt to detain other individuals.

---

Put that through my MSM translator and Carl Il with:
tackled him when he interfered with the arrest of someone else

quote:

---

who are engaging in a constitutionally protected activities

---

LMAO, the constitution applies to "Peaceful Assembly." Now go and look up that definition and then watch an hour or so of "protestors" in Minnesota and tell me if that describes "Peaceful Assembly."
What it does show is protestors are agitators engaged in impeding or obstructing of federal investigations which IS A CRIME!

Anyway, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals watched video of what you said was a "right" of the protestors and found that while some of it was peaceful, MOST OF IT WAS NOT.

Are you dumb enough to go wilding at a “protest” while carrying?


I don’t care about your stupid deflection.

quote:

---

Framing constitutionally protected activity as “obstruction” is exactly how rights get eroded.

---

The obstruction is impleading law enforcement.


And have you ever heard of "ARMED" Robbery? That isn't legally an infringement on the second amendment. Higher penalties for robbing someone if you were to use a firearm. Haven't heard anyone claim that is a 2A infringement before.

This isn't about the gov't collecting information on citizens that have done nothing illegal. It is about not even slapping them on the wrist when they should be going to jail. It is called building a case. If you don't document past criminal activity then you have nothing to show there is a pattern of obstruction.

“Obstruction” has a legal definition, not a vibes based one. Constitutionally protected activity does not become obstruction just because it makes law enforcement’s job harder. Inconvenience is not obstruction. If it did, the government could relabel protest, refusal to answer questions, or declining consent as obstruction whenever convenient. That is exactly how rights get eroded.

Armed robbery isn’t a good analogy. The enhanced penalty isn’t for being armed, it’s for using or threatening force during the commission of a crime. No one is arguing that using a weapon to commit a crime is protected. The issue is treating lawful behavior or protected activity as criminal so you can justify surveillance or punishment later.

And “building a case” doesn’t mean documenting people who haven’t committed crimes and punishing them later for a supposed pattern. You build a case by charging actual crimes with probable cause, not by retroactively labeling lawful conduct as obstruction.

If the claim is that a case is being built against citizens, that’s also a jurisdiction problem. Building criminal cases against citizens is the role of agencies with general criminal authority like local PD, state police, or the FBI. ICE’s authority is immigration enforcement. They don’t have broad jurisdiction to police citizens or state crimes, and they don’t get to manufacture obstruction theories to compensate for that.

If someone commits obstruction, have the proper authorities arrest and charge them.

Not automatically. Obstruction isn’t just “being in the way.” It requires intent and interference with a lawful duty. Context matters. Standing in a street can be protected activity, a traffic violation, or obstruction depending on what’s happening and whether lawful orders were given and ignored. More importantly, even when obstruction does exist, it’s a chargeable offense handled by agencies with criminal jurisdiction. It doesn’t justify treating protected activity as obstruction by default, and it certainly doesn’t justify building files or escalating force absent probable cause. If law enforcement believes obstruction occurred, the remedy is simple. Give a lawful order, document it, and have proper authorities make an arrest if it’s violated. Anything beyond that is not law enforcement, it’s overreach.

And I’ll be very curious to revisit this after the next president is sworn in and see how quickly some of you change your tune about what’s legal and what suddenly isn’t.