This morning, we woke up to the news that federal agents had shot and killed a protester in Minneapolis who was reportedly trying to interfere with an arrest. According to DHS, the man, a 37-year-old resident of Minneapolis, now identified as Alex Pretti, was armed with a handgun. There are now videos, which we have all seen, showing a group of agents struggling with the man. The scuffle ends with Prettis being shot. A loaded handgun and two magazines were seized by the agents.
As always, this case will be investigated by the appropriate federal agencies. The videos will be examined in detail, slow motion, clip by clip, to determine whether the actions of the agent(s) who shot Pretti did so with justification. What I want to know is whether Pretti had the gun in his hand at the time of the struggle. According to one DHS account I heard on TV, he was "brandishing" the weapon. Was it in his hand? Did he show it to the agents in his waistband when he approached? If it wasn't in his hand, was he attempting to reach for it during the struggle?
According to what Minnesota officials have told us, Pretti legally owned the gun and also had a concealed carry permit. That, of course, would not have given him the right to draw it while confronting federal agents. Where that gun was when he was shot is crucial.
What happened after the shooting is deeply disturbing. It is clear at this point that these actions by protesters are largely organized and involve outside agitators as well as ordinary Minneapolis residents who are outraged by the previous shooting and now this.
What is clearly not helping the situation is the continued fanning of the anger by Governor Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey. Instead of urging more "peaceful" protests, they should be telling their citizens to stay home. Today, both of them basically passed judgment on the shooting. Walz promised that in the end, Minnesota will bring justice. Frey, just as he did, in the shooting death of Renee Good, dismissed the claims of ICE/DHS that the shooting was in self-defense. Both of them prattled on about the "peaceful protests" going on in Minneapolis, even while the scenes of ICE agents being attacked played out.
And yes, President Trump does not help the situation with his comments.
How much of this could have been avoided had cities like Minneapolis not adopted their asinine sanctuary policies? How much safer it would be if ICE agents were able to pick up prisoners from local jails instead of having to track them down on the streets. It is regrettable that municipal and state police have not been securing the streets of Minneapolis while ICE goes about its business. It is they, not ICE, who are trained in crowd control. (Today, some MPD and State Police officers were sent to the scene, but were unable to secure it from the growing crowd.) Had Joe Biden not allowed millions of people with criminal or questionable backgrounds into our country, this entire nationwide operation might have been unnecessary.
So here we are again. Can anyone say with any confidence that this will be the last person to die in Minneapolis?
This one is pretty clear-cut. Witnesses report that his gun was taken away from him, and he did not draw it. He had a cell phone in his hand.
ReplyDeleteHe was trying to help a woman that they shoved to the ground. They had him on the ground and shot him almost a dozen times.
This was an execution of an American citizen by masked men.
I wish you would read the reports of what's happening. These masked thugs are stopping people on the street and going door to door. They have no reasonable suspicion (other than picking on non-white people). I tried telling you that the ACLU has records on the human rights abuses.
But your response is that you don't trust the ACLU. You don't trust news outlets that aren't heavily biased towards this administration. You don't trust fact checkers.
Yet you seem to trust everything that this administration has to say - an administration led by a lifelong con-man who lies like he'd run out of oxygen if he ever told the truth.
If ICE was just going after violent criminals, that would be one thing. It's obviously not what's happening. They're the Gestapo, and I wonder how bad things need to get for you to wake up. Maybe when they randomly stop your wife and ask for her papers? (Because that's exactly the kind of thing that's happening.)
Lance, After seeing more video, a couple of things stand out. He had a cell phone in his hand, not a gun. The gun was apparently in his waistband. We can also see an agent remove a gun from him just before the first shot. The agent walks away and puts the gun in a govt vehicle.
ReplyDeleteSo in my mind, this shooting becomes more questionable. But I still want to know if this guy at some point tried to draw that weapon during the struggle.
Can we discount that possibility? Once he is on the ground, it is very hard to see his hands.
So while I have more doubts, I still say let the investigation play out. You have already made your judgment. But I'm the one who needs to wake up even though I have been in somewhat similar situations. Have you?
And no, I don't believe everything Trump says. That ended a long time ago.
In that regard, do you believe Tim Walz?
I don't just "believe" or "disbelieve" anyone. Give me a thing he said, and I'll tell you whether I believe, disbelieve, or am agnostic. (Although I will say that my first instinct with anyone out of the Trump administration is to assume that they are lying, considering the track record. Somebody like Walz I approach with the same skepticism as any other politician, who all have agendas that will color their narrative.)
ReplyDeleteThis video seems as clear-cut as anything can possibly be.
And I don't know you to be some rabid 2nd Amendment guy, but even removing the gun from him (if it's in his waistband) is a violation of his rights. They were intimidating him because he was filming (1st Amendment) and escalated from there.
Look, even if we can agree that we need to change our policies about illegal immigration, turning this country into an authoritarian police-state is never going to be the answer. Otherwise, what are we even trying to protect this country from, other than our own government?
I pointed out the same points as you, but it still leaves questions that will decide whether anyone is charged or not.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that taking the weapon from him was a violation of his rights. He interfered with an arrest operation by inserting himself in the middle of it. There was a struggle and at a certain point, agents realized he was armed. Do we know whether he was trying at some point to draw the weapon"? No, we do not. When police are scuffling with someone who is interfering with an arrest, and you see he is armed, you are absolutely going to remove that weapon.
No, I am not a rabid 2nd amendment guy, but in a society with as much violent crime as we have, law-abiding people should be able to arm themselves for self protection. If you have a felony record or a history of mental illness, that is different.