[Meridian]

I think he was obstructing their attempts to unload the full can of pepper spray into his face and also obstructed their efforts to shoot him 10 times in the back. So yes he was obstructive when you look at it

[pervM]

Originally Posted by Vedderman ↗

The verbiage they use in their report contradicts the eyewitnesses and, frankly, doesn't make a lot of sense. I still don't understand the grounds for his alleged arrest.

When enforcement officers tell you to leave, you have to comply. If you don't, that alone gives them the excuse to arrest you. Again, police are like bar bouncers, except they have the right to remove you from the streets. And Pretti did break the law by bringing a gun to a protest, that is not covered by Minnesota carrying laws. So best case/happy ending scenario he was going to sit in jail for a while.

That is not to deny ICE fucked up during the arrest procedure, it is clear as day when one officer already disarms the perp and other one immediatly shoots him after. A clear rookie communication error. If the "gestapo" just wanted him dead, they wouldn't have gone through the effort of holding him down and grabbing his gun before executing him.

And now it turns out US appeals court overturned lower court order to limit use of force against protesters, citing that the videos showed "much" of the protest conduct was NOT peaceful. Now the local police are finally on the streets keeping protesters well clear of ICE for the safety of everyone. Just like I said they should do. If you want to film ICE, use zoom, or a drone like that one guy in thread suggested.

There was never going to be a scenario where protesters manage to drive ICE away, the whole Somali fraud fiasco and billions of tax dollars missing is too embarrassing for US government to ignore after the viral video hit 150 million views.
Minnesota is going to be filled with all sorts of federal agents for quite a while since their own law enforcement failed to solve the issue by themselves.

[tyroneslothrop]

Originally Posted by pervM ↗

And Pretti did break the law by bringing a gun to a protest, that is not covered by Minnesota carrying laws.

This is not true under Minnesota law. See Minn. Stat. § 624.714.

Also note the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus has also said this explicitly on X:

This is completely incorrect on Minnesota law.

There is no prohibition on a permit holder carrying a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines at a protest or rally in Minnesota.

This statement by MN Gun Owners Caucus was in response to FBI Director Kash Patel erroneously saying on January 25th: "You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It's that simple. You don't have a right to break the law."

Furthermore, SCOTUS previously ruled that carrying a firearm does not legally constitute "inciting violence."

[Faust]

I wish he read this website, especially my comments on the previous accident with people obstructing federal law enforcement would have literally saved his life. RIP

[Briarknit]

Ah yes he was obstructing their attempts to kill him.

[Faust]

If you really want to obstruct any attempts by law enforcement to kill you, you could try being a law abiding citizen, and fight them in court maybe.

[tyroneslothrop]

Originally Posted by Faust ↗

you could try being a law abiding citizen

Your statement might be more accurate if you replaced "law-abiding" with "pacific." As written, it could imply that you view protesting itself as illegal, when in fact civil disobedience has been a legitimate and constitutionally recognized option for Americans to getting their grievances address since 1776.

[AnonX93]

Originally Posted by Vedderman ↗

Submitted to the thread without comment.

Oh no! M.F.D.B. Lord and savior is going to take his guns!

[Faust]

Originally Posted by tyroneslothrop ↗

Your statement might be more accurate if you replaced "law-abiding" with "pacific." As written, it could imply that you view protesting itself as illegal, when in fact civil disobedience has been a legitimate and constitutionally recognized option for Americans to getting their grievances address since 1776.

Just to be clear, you call his behaviour “civil disobedience”?

[tyroneslothrop]

Originally Posted by Faust ↗

Just to be clear, you call his behaviour “civil disobedience”?

It depends on what the investigation ultimately shows he actually did. But if those who claim he never drew his gun and never threatened harm to the officers surrounding him turn out to be correct, then yes, in my view, that qualifies as civil disobedience. In all the videos I’ve viewed in this thread, I haven’t seen anything that would contradict this view. That said, there are likely additional videos I haven’t seen, and unlike the CBP Office of Professional Responsibility, I have not had access to any body-camera footage. It’s also worth noting that the CBP preliminary report released yesterday does not attribute any specific violent actions to him beyond resisting arrest, but it is true that actively resisting arrest, if he did it, does cross the line from civil disobedience, which is a reason I want to see the final report from the investigation.