re: Trump vs Kirk.....who is right?

quote:

---

keep seeing people saying this. But I'm not seeing it in real life. It's weird.

---

It’s just the latest twisted “gotcha” logic. Like asking how Jesus would treat illegal criminals.

I have no issue with the moron carrying a gun legally. Or illegally for that matter if he doesn’t get caught.

I don’t have an issue with him deciding that he just can’t stand in the face of “tyranny” any longer. He just made a really dumb decision in what he did next and it got him shot.

quote:

---

He got shot because the agents are incompetent and lack discipline

---

Please cite the section of their training manual or procedures that were violated. I know you don’t like to substantiate your allegations, but I am generously giving you the chance now.

quote:

---

And Pretti proved himself NOT to be a peaceful protester. So what’s your point?

---

Where is your proof of that? He was videoing law enforcement across the street, which he is allowed to do under the first amendment. He might have been been yelling obscenities at them, which he is again allowed to do under the first amendment.

The ice agent then crosses the street and confronts Pretti and wildly escalates the situation. I didn’t see evidence that Pretti was a “domestic terrorist” looking to kill as many agents as possible, as claimed by Noem. He was simply exercising his constitutional rights.

Kirk is correct. The 2nd Amendment is to keep tyranny in check.

quote:

---

You do realize that many democrats are gun owners right?

---

Yes and we know how bad you people shoot

quote:

---

In use of force cases the burden is on the government to justify why deadly force was necessary. The legal standard is objective reasonableness meaning officers must be able to articulate a reasonable belief of an imminent threat of serious injury or death at the exact moment force was used. Simply asserting fear or saying someone resisted is not enough.

---

Agreed

quote:

---

If you are claiming this shooting was justified then the burden is on you to point to evidence that shows how an unarmed man pinned on the ground by multiple agents posed an imminent threat. Five on one. On the ground. Being beaten. How exactly does that meet the threshold for deadly force. If there is body cam footage or a timeline that supports that claim then present it. Otherwise you are not substantiating anything you are just assuming the conclusion for the government.

---

I haven’t claimed anything. I asked him to substantiate his claim. As suspected he couldn’t.

quote:

---

Go lick some boots.

---

Go frick yourself. Don’t act like you’re some high-minded intellectual. You are ready to convict the LEO without any legal proceedings. Such a simpleton.

quote:

---

Carrying a firearm while getting in the face of law enforcement officers with the intent to disrupt their lawful duty is asking for trouble. If he was across the street minding his own business holding a sign, he'd be alive today.

---

I would also add that concealed carriers are required to notify a cop they are interacting with that they have a gun on them. It is the law.

You don’t need to cite a training manual to recognize a use of force problem when it’s right in front of you. This isn’t a complicated hypothetical. It’s a video of multiple agents restraining one unarmed person on the ground. Five on one. No weapon in hand. Use of force standards are built around whether there is an imminent threat at the moment force is used. Any reasonable person watching that video can ask how that threshold was met. If you think it was, then point to concrete evidence that contradicts what’s visible on the video. I’m open to that and I’ll look at it. But telling people they didn’t see what they clearly saw with their own eyes isn’t an argument. If the facts support your position, show them. If not, stop pretending this is some abstract training manual debate instead of a real world event caught on camera.

quote:

---

He got shot because the agents are incompetent and lack discipline. 

---

I saw several people lack competency as well as discipline. When the two ladies approached the officer as he was getting out of his vehicle, he told them to back up. They should have. They did not. Once the officer started to walk away, they began following him very briefly. At that point the officer began acting overly aggressive. Pretti decided to walk closer and film. His fate was sealed then. He should have not approached an overly aggressive LEO. He probably did not recognize the danger in doing so. We can tell he did not want an altercation. He was honest in his attempts to give aid to the ladies. Maybe the LEO recognized Pretti from his altercation the week prior. Who knows.

Honest opinion...a federal agent will most likely serve time time this. Too bad the officer that shot Pretti was the one there who was acting the most calm. The first officer is at fault. He chased the women to the curb. This action drew the rest.

I must add, you keep spouting the same things.
"Lack of training",
"incompetence",
etc
You need to admit that you have zero clue on what you spout. You do no good to the discussions.