[DegoLocc]

Vincent, I wanted to clarify, I don't think you're being disingenuous in your question. It's the question itself.

My opinion has been formed from patiently waiting for the past few days for as much new verified information as possible. I'd have to link you dozens of sources to arrive at the same conclusions that I have about media biases and narratives.

So, no disrespect, I just don't find that doable, and I doubt anything I could link would change your mind is all that I meant.

[Vincentsdream]

Bad faith? Im literally asking to be informed. Please show me this plainly biased information. I went to bull shit cnn and they didnt even say that.

[Vincentsdream]

Fair enough.

[CatBatMan]

Originally Posted by M.F.D.B. ↗

Tell that to autocorrect...

Spell Czech is a bitch.

[tyroneslothrop]

Originally Posted by DegoLocc ↗

Also, semantics, but still, if he had no ID on him as reported he wasn't carrying legally, at least in my state.

I know you already qualified this as just "semantics," but I think a point about this needs underscoring. As Briarknit points out above, this is almost purely a technicality with respect to Minnesota.

Not carrying your permit (as distinct from not having one at all) is a petty misdemeanor in Minnesota and the least serious, non-criminal offense. It results in a fine capped at $25, no jail time, and does not create a criminal record. Other examples of petty misdemeanors in Minnesota include minor traffic violations, littering, and small-amount marijuana possession. Basically, these are minor infractions designed to handle low-level violations without the consequences of a criminal conviction.

Furthermore, Minn. Stat. § 624.714 Subd. 1b (b) states that a citation issued for this violation must be dismissed if the person demonstrates in court or at the office of the arresting officer that they were actually authorized to carry the pistol at the time of the alleged violation.

So while you may be "technically correct" that it is illegal not to carry the permit, the term "illegal" barely applies in any meaningful sense. The infraction is trivial, carries almost no lasting consequences, and can be entirely erased by showing the authorities the actual permit (assuming the person lives long enough to do so later, which was not so in the case of Pretti).

[chumster76]

Originally Posted by DegoLocc ↗

So I guess the supposed fake AI video of Pretti attacking ICE taillights and spitting on agents was real. According to CBS and also BBC is reporting it too.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbs...ore-his-death/

Not saying he deserved to be killed over this, but it is telling and doesn't help the peaceful protestor or observer narratives.

Shit like this is why I always wait to get so upset or personally invested emotionally in these stories. Because who else knows what's yet to come up.

FWIW, at this point, still looks like a bad shoot on ICE. But it also shows how deceptive the media can be when whipping up the bleeding hearts for clicks.

I saw that video and it's a big strike against the peaceful protester angle.

[DegoLocc]

Here's a longer video, from another angle.

[Rugboot88]

Originally Posted by DegoLocc ↗

Here's a longer video, from another angle.

I want to be honest about how my own thinking evolved. When I saw the first angle and clip circulating, it gave me an uncanny-valley feeling. It lined up almost too neatly with the recent narratives being pushed about how Pretti was violent or dangerous, and my initial reaction was skepticism.

For a moment, it honestly felt manipulated or artificial until I saw the additional angle, thanks DegoLocc for posting that second view.

I’ll admit it, the clip does not show him in a flattering light. Spitting at agents, yelling obscenities, and damaging a vehicle are not defensible behaviors. That context matters, and I’m not interested in glossing over it. It shows he could be provocative and confrontational.

What stands out to me, though, is what still does not happen in that encounter. Agents go hands-on with him. They are clearly aware he has a firearm in his waistband. After a brief struggle, they disengage. No chemical agents are deployed. No one grabs his weapon. No shots are fired. He walks away alive. That contrast matters.

Seeing that incident alongside the later shooting doesn’t resolve the issue for me. It sharpens it. Across both encounters, I don’t see clear evidence of intent to use a firearm against officers. What changes is not his underlying behavior so much as the level of coordination, restraint, and escalation used by the agents involved.

Not to beat a dead horse, but deadly force is judged at the moment it is applied, based on immediacy and necessity. Prior misconduct can explain caution, but it doesn’t lower that threshold. Even someone acting badly retains First and Fourth Amendment protections until they present an imminent threat that cannot be otherwise stopped.

I’m not interested in defending a person, a policy, or a political camp here. I’m interested in whether the same standards are being applied consistently. That’s the only frame that makes sense to me if we care about our rights.

[Faust]

Originally Posted by DegoLocc ↗

Here's a longer video, from another angle.

I created a new definition:

Virtue Whistling

[Faust]

Originally Posted by DegoLocc ↗

So I guess the supposed fake AI video of Pretti attacking ICE taillights and spitting on agents was real. According to CBS and also BBC is reporting it too.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbs...ore-his-death/

Not saying he deserved to be killed over this, but it is telling and doesn't help the peaceful protestor or observer narratives.

Shit like this is why I always wait to get so upset or personally invested emotionally in these stories. Because who else knows what's yet to come up.

FWIW, at this point, still looks like a bad shoot on ICE. But it also shows how deceptive the media can be when whipping up the bleeding hearts for clicks.

lol this is quite tragic, so in 100% of all 2026 ice related shootings it turns out that the initial CNN narrative (which influences even moderators) turns out to be misleading