2
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ice Shooting In Austin - Democrats are ALREADY attacking.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 6:19 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Posted on 9/23/26 at 6:19 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Y'all keep saying that. We have never heard from the agent who initiated contact with the two women and Pretti on what he was thinking.
disingenuous horseshite. why else was he there? just an innocent bystander walking down the street huh? frick off
Posted on 9/23/26 at 6:24 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
IvoryBillMatt
you're definitely unemployed
Posted on 9/23/26 at 6:25 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
All the other good guys and bad guys stuff is certainly true. It just doesn't make any difference legally.
Oh my lord bill Matthew, you’re still going in here, and in the same spot as when I left!
It probably does make a gigantic difference legally.What does the law say about intentionally creating a hostile environment for law enforcement? Something about totality of circumstances, imminent threat, and shite like that. Maybe some repeat offender dude that attacked their vehicles with a gun the day before would fit in there somewhere ?
If Alex pretti got shot the same exact way on the lake front in mandeville, la. The legality of the shoot would be different than Minnesotafalujah. At least in my 14 seconds of googling research, I have to believe this is correct.
You don’t like it, in a vacuum, but Alex pretti was quite literally asking for it, at the direction of coordinated, hostile, city officials, with a gun, with a known history of assaulting (a car) and obstructing.
This post was edited on 9/23/26 at 6:28 pm
Posted on 9/23/26 at 6:30 pm to Klark Kent
quote:
disingenuous horseshite. why else was he there? just an innocent bystander walking down the street huh? frick off
Assume he was trying to actively interfere and obstruct. How does that change the analysis?
Law enforcement can't shoot someone for breaking the law. There has to be a threat of serious bodily injury or death.
I am sympathetic to those agents. It's a tough, important job made much more difficult by sanctuary states and assholes such as Pretti. That doesn't change the law or the fact that Pretti was no threat to anyone when he was shot to death.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 6:37 pm to IvoryBillMatt
He was no threat, in your opinion, sitting at home, from 30 seconds of footage. All of this below is accurate and true and been going on for days. You’re not being completely honest because the law specifically acknowledges everything past the line you’ve drawn of “you can’t shoot ordinary normal everyday people breaking the law.”
As soon as you’re forced to acknowledge he wasn’t a normal everyday person walking the lakefront in Mandeville, your house of cards collapses - but I know you’re way too invested to admit this……. but I know, that you know ;)
As soon as you’re forced to acknowledge he wasn’t a normal everyday person walking the lakefront in Mandeville, your house of cards collapses - but I know you’re way too invested to admit this……. but I know, that you know ;)
quote:
Imminent Threat Assessment: An officer may be legally justified in using deadly force if they reasonably believe they or others face an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. In a chaotic, hostile crowd where projectiles are thrown, exits are blocked, or officers are physically surrounded, the threshold for what constitutes an "imminent threat" can be reached much faster than during a routine, calm interaction.
Perceived Vulnerability: Courts consider the officer's physical surroundings. An officer isolated inside a hostile crowd faces a compounding danger multiplier. Case law acknowledges that an officer outnumbered and cornered by a volatile mob reasonably possesses a higher apprehension of severe harm, which can validate defensive actions.
Split-Second Judgments: The law explicitly allows for the reality that humans make errors in judgment under extreme stress. If an environment is intentionally engineered to terrify or disorient law enforcement, courts weigh that high-stress context heavily when evaluating the officer’s reaction.
This post was edited on 9/23/26 at 6:40 pm
Posted on 9/23/26 at 6:39 pm to rocksteady
quote:
You don’t like it, in a vacuum, but Alex pretti was quite literally asking for it, at the direction of coordinated, hostile, city officials, with a gun, with a known history of assaulting (a car) and obstructing
Absolutely. Alex Pretti was an awful person who destroyed federal property and spit at an agent. None of that, however, happened with the agents who shot him to death. They didn't know who he was.
The only issue is did the agents reasonably believe that he was a threat of serious bodily harm or death to them WHEN they shot him?
The only possible explanation to support such a finding is that the agent who removed Pretti's gun created an accidental misfire and the two agents who shot Pretti panicked in response.
This post was edited on 9/23/26 at 8:57 pm
Posted on 9/23/26 at 6:40 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Split-Second Judgments: The law explicitly allows for the reality that humans make errors in judgment under extreme stress. If an environment is intentionally engineered to terrify or disorient law enforcement, courts weigh that high-stress context heavily when evaluating the officer’s reaction.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 6:44 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
The only possible explanation to support such a finding is that the agent who removed Pretti's gun created an accidental misfire and the two agents who shot Pretti panicked in response.
Hank. You’re so silly. Posted on 9/23/26 at 6:46 pm to BBONDS25
He’s constructed an almost iron clad lawful defense for the officers outside of a mind reading machine that goes back in time and catches a split second thought of ‘im gonna shoot this fricka lol’
Posted on 9/23/26 at 6:49 pm to rocksteady
Not that it matters, but he's the only person (on this board anyway) that's showing signs of sorrow for a domestic terrorist.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 6:49 pm to rocksteady
quote:
You’re not being completely honest because the law specifically acknowledges everything past the line you’ve draw if “you can’t shoot ordinary normal everyday people breaking the law”
Of course. Here, there weren't any projectiles or anything thrown at the agents. There were cars honking their horns and maybe some whistles being blown. I doubt a Minnesota jury (federal or state) would find that sufficient to meet the conditions you described.
An accidental discharge from Pretti's gun when the other agent probably WOULD be enough to exonerate the agents who panicked.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 6:54 pm to rocksteady
quote:
Split-Second Judgments: The law explicitly allows for the reality that humans make errors in judgment under extreme stress. If an environment is intentionally engineered to terrify or disorient law enforcement, courts weigh that high-stress context heavily when evaluating the officer’s reaction.
Yup. That's why a grand jury should hear the evidence...and let the judicial system take it from there.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 6:57 pm to IvoryBillMatt
I’m not sure what you’re looking for lol. You agree with everything but at the end just keep going ‘but I dunno’
I still think you’re severely diminishing the totality of the circumstances of purposely engineered hostile environment in relation to 30 seconds of leading up to the shooting, but…
Also, seems like you’ve admitted there is a path for a lawful case to be made that exonerates the LEOs!
Think we’re good here, adios
I still think you’re severely diminishing the totality of the circumstances of purposely engineered hostile environment in relation to 30 seconds of leading up to the shooting, but…
Also, seems like you’ve admitted there is a path for a lawful case to be made that exonerates the LEOs!
Think we’re good here, adios
Posted on 9/23/26 at 7:08 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
Not that it matters, but he's the only person (on this board anyway) that's showing signs of sorrow for a domestic terrorist.
I don't know why y'all confuse my comments for sorrow for Pretti. The law is the law no matter who is involved. It should be applied without reference to the parties.
Pretti should have been arrested and convicted of interference, destruction of property and assault on a federal officer from the rear light kicking incident.
The lawfare against Trump was an abomination. I pointed that out, etc, etc, etc.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 7:12 pm to rocksteady
quote:
I’m not sure what you’re looking for lol.
Nothing more than an admission that just because the good guys shot a bad guy doesn't mean the good guys followed the law.
Happy trails.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 7:35 pm to IvoryBillMatt
You’ve really revealed your true character in this thread bud.
You’re conveniently declaring there was “no threat” after reviewing everything in slow motion from the safety of your keyboard.
Pretti wasn’t shot simply for “breaking the law.” He was actively interfering with federal agents, refused their commands, became involved in a physical struggle, and was carrying a loaded handgun. During that struggle, an agent repeatedly yelled, “He’s got a gun.” Another agent apparently secured it less than a second before the shooting. Were all the agents supposed to instantly know the weapon had been removed while wrestling an armed man on the ground?
And spare me the innocent-bystander rewrite. Eleven days earlier, Pretti confronted federal agents, kicked out the taillight of their vehicle, physically struggled with them, and had that same gun visible in his waistband. Good shoot. frick him.
You’re conveniently declaring there was “no threat” after reviewing everything in slow motion from the safety of your keyboard.
Pretti wasn’t shot simply for “breaking the law.” He was actively interfering with federal agents, refused their commands, became involved in a physical struggle, and was carrying a loaded handgun. During that struggle, an agent repeatedly yelled, “He’s got a gun.” Another agent apparently secured it less than a second before the shooting. Were all the agents supposed to instantly know the weapon had been removed while wrestling an armed man on the ground?
And spare me the innocent-bystander rewrite. Eleven days earlier, Pretti confronted federal agents, kicked out the taillight of their vehicle, physically struggled with them, and had that same gun visible in his waistband. Good shoot. frick him.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 8:01 pm to Klark Kent
quote:
You’re conveniently declaring there was “no threat” after reviewing everything in slow motion from the safety of your keyboard.
If I conveyed that, I apologize. I don't KNOW. I haven't seen any evidence of a threat, nor has DHS even suggested that. If you find some evidence, let me know.
There's been videos released that showed Perez was lying about not knowing it was ICE that was chasing him. Maybe evidence will come out that we haven't seen suggesting that Perez was a serious threat to the ICE recruit who shot him in the back.
As for the Pretti situation, I mentioned that primarily to show that DHS had learned its lesson: rather than lie about the reasons for a shooting, just don't give any. For fun, here was the then-DHS Secretary said initially about Pretti (note: "attacked those officers...brandishing":))
KRISTI NOEM, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: Individual went and impeded their law enforcement operations, attacked those officers, had a weapon on him, and multiple -- dozens of rounds of ammunition, wishing to inflict harm on these officers coming, brandishing like that and impeding their work that they were doing. When you perpetuate violence against a government because of ideological reasons and for reasons to resist and perpetuate violence, that is the definition of domestic terrorism.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 8:09 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Noem obviously got out over her skis. The video doesn’t show Pretti brandishing the gun. I’m not defending that statement.
But her embellishment doesn’t magically prove your opposite conclusion that Pretti presented “no threat.”
He inserted himself into an active law-enforcement operation, refused commands, was being taken into custody, physically struggled with multiple officers, and had a loaded handgun concealed on him. During that struggle, an officer repeatedly yelled, “He’s got a gun.” Another officer apparently removed it less than a second before the shooting, but what evidence do you have that both shooters immediately knew the weapon had been secured?
He didn’t have to be there.
I don’t know why you and the Lefties defend this loser.
Are officers wrestling with an armed man required to assume peaceful intentions and wait until the gun is physically in his hand before recognizing a serious threat?
But her embellishment doesn’t magically prove your opposite conclusion that Pretti presented “no threat.”
He inserted himself into an active law-enforcement operation, refused commands, was being taken into custody, physically struggled with multiple officers, and had a loaded handgun concealed on him. During that struggle, an officer repeatedly yelled, “He’s got a gun.” Another officer apparently removed it less than a second before the shooting, but what evidence do you have that both shooters immediately knew the weapon had been secured?
He didn’t have to be there.
I don’t know why you and the Lefties defend this loser.
Are officers wrestling with an armed man required to assume peaceful intentions and wait until the gun is physically in his hand before recognizing a serious threat?
Posted on 9/23/26 at 8:13 pm to Klark Kent
quote:
Are officers wrestling with an armed man required to assume peaceful intentions and wait until the gun is physically in his hand before recognizing a serious threat?
Bingo
...and it's still being debated if the gun was pulled from his waste band or his hand.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 8:14 pm to Klark Kent
quote:
But her embellishment doesn’t magically prove your opposite conclusion that Pretti presented “no threat.”
Yeah, I shouldn't overstate that. Personally, absent some accidental discharge that spooked the two shooters, I wouldn't think it was reasonable to think Pretti was a threat of serious bodily injury or death. A jury might conclude otherwise.
It would be helpful to see the bodycam footage and Pretti's phone footage.
Page 17 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News