We don't need a million thread on this topic. We like one thread per topic. We merged several others into this thread including one called "Alex Pretti was a deranged lunatic." and one called "New York Times reports that Pretti attacked ICE cars 11 days before his death" and one called "LeBron James: Why hasn't he commented on the Alex Pretti killing?"
If you pay attention, most of these agents ask people multiple times to stop breaking laws before having to physically intervene. I have no problem with people protesting, so long as they are doing so legally. Both Good and Pretti were committing crimes at the time of their deaths, which contributed to their deaths.
So committing a crime allows agents to forcibly intervene, draw weapons, and kill people regardless of what the crime is?
When they feel they are in mortal danger. Ramming an agent with your 4600# van after being ordered to exit the vehicle provides a sense of mortal danger. resisting arrest while armed, and an agent calls out “gun, gun, gun” and other agents see an object in your hand and an empty holster also provides a sense of mortal danger.
It is illegal to interfere with an arrest even if you believe the arrest to be unjust. You might feel carrying a gun makes you safer. The opposite is true. Not one agent had their weapons drawn until they saw Pretti’s.
If you are armed, don’t initiate conflict. Assemble peaceably, take videos, etc. Don’t interfere with law enforcement. Pretti was angry and depressed. His wife left him, his dog died, he was an angry vegan who decided to start carrying a special edition semiautomatic hand gun with enough ammunition for a prolonged engagement with law enforcement. He shared a mindset with yourself, which is why he instigated violence with law enforcement on multiple occasions. And now he’s dead. Don’t promote the execution of law enforcement. That is where you cross the limits of free speech.
When they feel they are in mortal danger. Ramming an agent with your 4600# van after being ordered to exit the vehicle provides a sense of mortal danger. resisting arrest while armed, and an agent calls out “gun, gun, gun” and other agents see an object in your hand and an empty holster also provides a sense of mortal danger.
It is illegal to interfere with an arrest even if you believe the arrest to be unjust. You might feel carrying a gun makes you safer. The opposite is true. Not one agent had their weapons drawn until they saw Pretti’s.
If you are armed, don’t initiate conflict. Assemble peaceably, take videos, etc. Don’t interfere with law enforcement. Pretti was angry and depressed. His wife left him, his dog died, he was an angry vegan who decided to start carrying a special edition semiautomatic hand gun with enough ammunition for a prolonged engagement with law enforcement. He shared a mindset with yourself, which is why he instigated violence with law enforcement on multiple occasions. And now he’s dead. Don’t promote the execution of law enforcement. That is where you cross the limits of free speech.
He wasn’t “rammed.” 🙄
You’re just a good little sheeple so carry on with your sheepling.
When they feel they are in mortal danger. Ramming an agent with your 4600# van after being ordered to exit the vehicle provides a sense of mortal danger. resisting arrest while armed, and an agent calls out “gun, gun, gun” and other agents see an object in your hand and an empty holster also provides a sense of mortal danger.
It is illegal to interfere with an arrest even if you believe the arrest to be unjust. You might feel carrying a gun makes you safer. The opposite is true. Not one agent had their weapons drawn until they saw Pretti’s.
If you are armed, don’t initiate conflict. Assemble peaceably, take videos, etc. Don’t interfere with law enforcement. Pretti was angry and depressed. His wife left him, his dog died, he was an angry vegan who decided to start carrying a special edition semiautomatic hand gun with enough ammunition for a prolonged engagement with law enforcement. He shared a mindset with yourself, which is why he instigated violence with law enforcement on multiple occasions. And now he’s dead. Don’t promote the execution of law enforcement. That is where you cross the limits of free speech.
He wasn’t “rammed.” 🙄
You’re just a good little sheeple so carry on with your sheepling.
So committing a crime allows agents to forcibly intervene, draw weapons, and kill people regardless of what the crime is?
When they feel they are in mortal danger. Ramming an agent with your 4600# van after being ordered to exit the vehicle provides a sense of mortal danger. resisting arrest while armed, and an agent calls out “gun, gun, gun” and other agents see an object in your hand and an empty holster also provides a sense of mortal danger.
It is illegal to interfere with an arrest even if you believe the arrest to be unjust. You might feel carrying a gun makes you safer. The opposite is true. Not one agent had their weapons drawn until they saw Pretti’s.
If you are armed, don’t initiate conflict. Assemble peaceably, take videos, etc. Don’t interfere with law enforcement. Pretti was angry and depressed. His wife left him, his dog died, he was an angry vegan who decided to start carrying a special edition semiautomatic hand gun with enough ammunition for a prolonged engagement with law enforcement. He shared a mindset with yourself, which is why he instigated violence with law enforcement on multiple occasions. And now he’s dead. Don’t promote the execution of law enforcement. That is where you cross the limits of free speech.
So committing a crime allows agents to forcibly intervene, draw weapons, and kill people regardless of what the crime is?
When they feel they are in mortal danger. Ramming an agent with your 4600# van after being ordered to exit the vehicle provides a sense of mortal danger. resisting arrest while armed, and an agent calls out “gun, gun, gun” and other agents see an object in your hand and an empty holster also provides a sense of mortal danger.
It is illegal to interfere with an arrest even if you believe the arrest to be unjust. You might feel carrying a gun makes you safer. The opposite is true. Not one agent had their weapons drawn until they saw Pretti’s.
If you are armed, don’t initiate conflict. Assemble peaceably, take videos, etc. Don’t interfere with law enforcement. Pretti was angry and depressed. His wife left him, his dog died, he was an angry vegan who decided to start carrying a special edition semiautomatic hand gun with enough ammunition for a prolonged engagement with law enforcement. He shared a mindset with yourself, which is why he instigated violence with law enforcement on multiple occasions. And now he’s dead. Don’t promote the execution of law enforcement. That is where you cross the limits of free speech.
Please explain what the “limits of free speech” are here.
So committing a crime allows agents to forcibly intervene, draw weapons, and kill people regardless of what the crime is?
When they feel they are in mortal danger.
Correct, which they obviously believed and who wouldn’t?
You try to detain an individual that is on record raising h*ll…
He does not tell officers that he is carrying and ready for war (unlike anyone who’s ever carried, he’s got extra msgs and a scope on a pistol)…
And then at that moment the lunatic grabs his cell phone, a well know detonating device.
This is a no brainer, smash 100 bullets into that loser before he can press the button on the phone to blow up God knows what? In that moment it ain’t no time for talking, any cop will error on the side of caution to protect himself and the public.
Ashli Babbitt was not armed and not a threat to a 250# officer, just fyi.
Please explain what the “limits of free speech” are here.
Facts =/= feelings
The U.S. Supreme Court has developed clear standards to determine when speech promoting violence loses its First Amendment protection: Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action: Speech is not protected if it is directed to and likely to incite or produce imminent lawless action (e.g., immediate violence or a riot). This standard, established in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio(1969), differentiates between abstract advocacy of force (which is protected) and speech that creates an immediate danger of lawbreaking. True Threats: The First Amendment does not protect "true threats," which are statements where the speaker communicates a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against a particular individual or group of individuals. The speaker does not need to actually intend to carry out the threat, but must have intended to place the victim in fear of bodily harm or death. Fighting Words: This narrow exception refers to "personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace" in a face-to-face encounter.
Please explain what the “limits of free speech” are here.
Facts =/= feelings
The U.S. Supreme Court has developed clear standards to determine when speech promoting violence loses its First Amendment protection: Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action: Speech is not protected if it is directed to and likely to incite or produce imminent lawless action (e.g., immediate violence or a riot). This standard, established in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio(1969), differentiates between abstract advocacy of force (which is protected) and speech that creates an immediate danger of lawbreaking. True Threats: The First Amendment does not protect "true threats," which are statements where the speaker communicates a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence against a particular individual or group of individuals. The speaker does not need to actually intend to carry out the threat, but must have intended to place the victim in fear of bodily harm or death. Fighting Words: This narrow exception refers to "personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace" in a face-to-face encounter.
Glad we cleared that up. I accept the retraction of your accusation.
Correct, which they obviously believed and who wouldn’t?
You try to detain an individual that is on record raising h*ll…
He does not tell officers that he is carrying and ready for war (unlike anyone who’s ever carried, he’s got extra msgs and a scope on a pistol)…
And then at that moment the lunatic grabs his cell phone, a well know detonating device.
This is a no brainer, smash 100 bullets into that loser before he can press the button on the phone to blow up God knows what? In that moment it ain’t no time for talking, any cop will error on the side of caution to protect himself and the public.
Ashli Babbitt was not armed and not a threat to a 250# officer, just fyi.
Wonderful. We now have idiots arguing that holding a cell phone justifies federal agents executing you.
You will really just bend over for anything.
"Put 100 bullets into that loser" for holding a cell phone.
Correct, which they obviously believed and who wouldn’t?
You try to detain an individual that is on record raising h*ll…
He does not tell officers that he is carrying and ready for war (unlike anyone who’s ever carried, he’s got extra msgs and a scope on a pistol)…
And then at that moment the lunatic grabs his cell phone, a well know detonating device.
This is a no brainer, smash 100 bullets into that loser before he can press the button on the phone to blow up God knows what? In that moment it ain’t no time for talking, any cop will error on the side of caution to protect himself and the public.
Ashli Babbitt was not armed and not a threat to a 250# officer, just fyi.
Stop it. If your argument holds true, the ICE gang would shoot any bystander who holds a cellphone, a well known detonating device. Wake up, silly.
Correct, which they obviously believed and who wouldn’t?
You try to detain an individual that is on record raising h*ll…
He does not tell officers that he is carrying and ready for war (unlike anyone who’s ever carried, he’s got extra msgs and a scope on a pistol)…
And then at that moment the lunatic grabs his cell phone, a well know detonating device.
This is a no brainer, smash 100 bullets into that loser before he can press the button on the phone to blow up God knows what? In that moment it ain’t no time for talking, any cop will error on the side of caution to protect himself and the public.
Ashli Babbitt was not armed and not a threat to a 250# officer, just fyi.
Wonderful. We now have idiots arguing that holding a cell phone justifies federal agents executing you.
You will really just bend over for anything.
"Put 100 bullets into that loser" for holding a cell phone.
CORRECT. 100%. You would be a damn fool to trust a guy loaded like that knowing cell phones are commonly used to blow things up. What kind of idiot are you?
Should have put 1500 bullets in that criminal. Whatever it takes to eliminate the threat. Why didn’t the guy tell officers he had a war chest on his hip as any lawful conceal carry person would?
That is the law. Fk that guy. 100 rounds, toss him in an urn. He had bad intentions with a criminal mind and now he is dead.
Suicide by Cop.
The only people arguing otherwise have never fired a gun and damn sure are not concealed permit holders.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
So committing a crime allows agents to forcibly intervene, draw weapons, and kill people regardless of what the crime is?
When they feel they are in mortal danger. Ramming an agent with your 4600# van after being ordered to exit the vehicle provides a sense of mortal danger. resisting arrest while armed, and an agent calls out “gun, gun, gun” and other agents see an object in your hand and an empty holster also provides a sense of mortal danger.
It is illegal to interfere with an arrest even if you believe the arrest to be unjust. You might feel carrying a gun makes you safer. The opposite is true. Not one agent had their weapons drawn until they saw Pretti’s.
If you are armed, don’t initiate conflict. Assemble peaceably, take videos, etc. Don’t interfere with law enforcement. Pretti was angry and depressed. His wife left him, his dog died, he was an angry vegan who decided to start carrying a special edition semiautomatic hand gun with enough ammunition for a prolonged engagement with law enforcement. He shared a mindset with yourself, which is why he instigated violence with law enforcement on multiple occasions. And now he’s dead. Don’t promote the execution of law enforcement. That is where you cross the limits of free speech.
It’s actually not true that simply “feeling in mortal danger” is justification.
Otherwise the pussies at ICE would be justified at mag dumping into bystanders when they slip on ice or hear an acorn fall.
Thankfully the courts are pretty good at clearing this up when the executive branch doesn’t intervene.
And if justice isn’t served, the general public tends to revolt: 34 point swing in Texas, Trump at -40 among independents (!!).
This post was edited 13 seconds after it was posted.
When they feel they are in mortal danger. Ramming an agent with your 4600# van after being ordered to exit the vehicle provides a sense of mortal danger. resisting arrest while armed, and an agent calls out “gun, gun, gun” and other agents see an object in your hand and an empty holster also provides a sense of mortal danger.
It is illegal to interfere with an arrest even if you believe the arrest to be unjust. You might feel carrying a gun makes you safer. The opposite is true. Not one agent had their weapons drawn until they saw Pretti’s.
If you are armed, don’t initiate conflict. Assemble peaceably, take videos, etc. Don’t interfere with law enforcement. Pretti was angry and depressed. His wife left him, his dog died, he was an angry vegan who decided to start carrying a special edition semiautomatic hand gun with enough ammunition for a prolonged engagement with law enforcement. He shared a mindset with yourself, which is why he instigated violence with law enforcement on multiple occasions. And now he’s dead. Don’t promote the execution of law enforcement. That is where you cross the limits of free speech.
It’s actually not true that simply “feeling in mortal danger” is justification.
It’s 100% true. You don’t know your *ss from a hole in the ground, and obviously have zero experience with firearms, so leave it to the pros.
The very first thing ANY concealed permit holder learns is that you fire if you feel your life is in danger…and when a lunatic fails to disclose a war chest on his hip and then reaches for a detonating dance, you end him. Just like that.
All you losers arguing otherwise need to apply for gun permits and get back to us.
It’s actually not true that simply “feeling in mortal danger” is justification.
It’s 100% true. You don’t know your *ss from a hole in the ground, and obviously have zero experience with firearms, so leave it to the pros.
The very first thing ANY concealed permit holder learns is that you fire if you feel your life is in danger…and when a lunatic fails to disclose a war chest on his hip and then reaches for a detonating dance, you end him. Just like that.
All you losers arguing otherwise need to apply for gun permits and get back to us.
I assume you have gun permits. How many shots have you fired, and how many people have you killed?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.