- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Violent behavior displayed by Pretti a week before he was shot
Posted on 1/29/26 at 12:29 pm to chRxis
Posted on 1/29/26 at 12:29 pm to chRxis
No. I don't need to know you. Anyone who is too stupid to see this guy brought his own death upon himself by his actions isn't worth my time.
The restraint of the federal agents after he spit on one of them is much more than what I would have for him if the same thing happened to me.
The restraint of the federal agents after he spit on one of them is much more than what I would have for him if the same thing happened to me.
2
Posted on 1/29/26 at 12:44 pm to sgallo3
So an armed, openly hostile individual carrying a firearm (legal or not isn't relevant at that point) is not an imminent threat?
Should they have waited for him to draw first?
Maybe they knew of his previous behavior, but even if those particular agents didn't, let's not pretend he wasn't a hostile, angry individual.
Should they have waited for him to draw first?
Maybe they knew of his previous behavior, but even if those particular agents didn't, let's not pretend he wasn't a hostile, angry individual.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 12:49 pm to N2cars
quote:
So an armed, openly hostile individual carrying a firearm (legal or not isn't relevant at that point) is not an imminent threat?
Is this a serious question? No. A gun in a holster is not an active (imminent) threat.
This post was edited on 1/29/26 at 12:50 pm
Posted on 1/29/26 at 12:50 pm to GRTiger
quote:
Deporting illegals isn't political
It certainly is when it's a large portion of one party's voter base.
This post was edited on 1/29/26 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 1/29/26 at 12:55 pm to sgallo3
quote:
No. A gun in a holster is not an active (imminent) threat.
Of course it isn't.
OK, carry on.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 12:57 pm to sgallo3
quote:
quote:So an armed, openly hostile individual carrying a firearm (legal or not isn't relevant at that point) is not an imminent threat?
Is this a serious question? No. A gun in a holster is not an active (imminent) threat.
Conveniently ignored a very important qualifier in that quote.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 12:59 pm to pankReb
When the facts don't fit the narrative, just ignore the facts.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 1:00 pm to pankReb
quote:
Conveniently ignored a very important qualifier in that quote
Are you arguing that Pretti was imminently capable of causing deadly or great bodily harm to the officers when he was shot? From this position after having been disarmed
I feel like people are struggling to understand the difference between an imminent threat and a perceived threat.
Someone pointing a gun at you is an imminent threat. Someone having a gun on their person is a perceived possible threat.
This post was edited on 1/29/26 at 1:10 pm
Posted on 1/29/26 at 1:29 pm to N2cars
quote:
How much time elapsed from the time he was disarmed and when he was shot?
Probably less than a second..
IMO as the weapon was being removed from him ..it fired a round and the agents reacted to that and fired their weapons..
Posted on 1/29/26 at 1:58 pm to sgallo3
You have the incredible benefit of looking at something frame by frame from an outside view and making the assumption that the firing officer has the same perspective.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 2:00 pm to Classy Doge
quote:
Anyone who is too stupid to see this guy brought his own death upon himself by his actions isn't worth my time
yet, here you are...
quote:
The restraint of the federal agents after he spit on one of them is much more than what I would have for him if the same thing happened to me.
lawd...
Posted on 1/29/26 at 2:04 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Yes, there is. Kirk and Trump being dehumanized in life is what led to them being targeted for death. The same cannot be said for the other examples. That is a VERY big difference.
Now do Gabby Giffords. Survived, but just barely.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 2:04 pm to pankReb
quote:
You have the incredible benefit of looking at something frame by frame from an outside view and making the assumption that the firing officer has the same perspective
At no point in the entire altercation did the officer that pulled his gun and fired the shot from above the suspect have a weapon pointed at him.
Being in a sketchy situation does not mean you are under imminent threat of immediate death or great bodily harm.
Just hearing gun from his own partners doesnt either. There could have been someone pulling a gun down the street. That doesnt justify shooting the guy you currently have down.
You have to witness an imminent threat to dispatch deadly force.
This post was edited on 1/29/26 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 1/29/26 at 2:08 pm to sgallo3
quote:
At no point in the entire altercation did the officer that pulled his gun and fired the shot from above the suspect have a weapon pointed at him.
It’s some entirely shitty logic. You really need to think this through for a bit.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 2:13 pm to pankReb
quote:
It’s some entirely shitty logic.
The law?
You have to follow the statute
Subd. 2.Use of deadly force. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:
(1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:
quote:
(i) can be articulated with specificity;
(ii) is reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer; and
(iii) must be addressed through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay; or
(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony and the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm to another person under the threat criteria in clause (1), items (i) to (iii), unless immediately apprehended.
(b) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger the person poses to self if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that the person does not pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to the peace officer or to another under the threat criteria in paragraph (a), clause (1), items (i) to (iii).
Posted on 1/29/26 at 2:17 pm to sgallo3
quote:
1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:
quote:
At no point in the entire altercation did the officer that pulled his gun and fired the shot from above the suspect have a weapon pointed at him.
Posted on 1/29/26 at 2:19 pm to chRxis
quote:
seems like a VERY important element, that they would 100% disclose, if it had happened... and there would be gun powder residue on the agent that it misfired on... he was not one of the 2 that shot Pretti, so if he has residue, it's Pretti's gun misfire... if not, it didn't... guess we can wait for the definitive proof, but if it happened, it would be CRUCIAL to the report to report that... but it's not in the report...
As I already stated that specific outline was to update congress on know facts at that point in time in an ongoing investigation which would leave out anything they do not consider to be a fact yet.
That could mean they can’t prove a discharge occurred as a fact to include in factual report to Congress yet, that it 100% didn’t happen & left out for that reason, or that it was completely unclear in either direction at that time. That particular report to congress wasn’t the 100% proof that a discharge did not happen like you used in your reply to someone telling them to stick to the facts based on that DHS update to congress which again did not explicitly state what you said was a fact.
I actually don’t have an opinion of whether his gun accidentally discharged or not at this point, and taking either side on that was not the reasoning behind my reply. I was just showing that what you used as a source was not proving your point to be a fact like you were claiming.
This post was edited on 1/29/26 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 1/29/26 at 2:24 pm to pankReb
quote:
quote:
At no point in the entire altercation did the officer that pulled his gun and fired the shot from above the suspect have a weapon pointed at him.
He didnt see a weapon pointed at another officer either...
There was no specific action pretti took that threatened death or serious bodily harm to the officers.
The first guideline in dispatching deadly force is to be able to articulate a specific threat, i.e. He pointed a weapon at Bob, vs a general danger that comes with restraining any armed suspect
This post was edited on 1/29/26 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 1/29/26 at 2:26 pm to dallastigers
quote:what the video shows, as well as the fact that it's not in the report, when taken together, leaves little room for doubt as far as a misfire... you can choose to hold out for hope that the 1% comes true and perhaps makes tragedy more palatable or whatever, but realistically, to anyone looking at it UNBIASEDLY, it's pretty clear there was no misfire... but i can't tell you what to believe... it's totally your opinion, and good on ya, i suppose
I was just showing that what you used as a source was not proving your point to be a fact like you were claiming.
quote:
know facts at that point in time in an ongoing investigation which would leave out anything they do not consider to be a fact yet.
i would think the officer carrying the firearm, had it misfired, would have claimed that, and therefore it would have been in the report... you think they forgot to mention it? if a gun you were holding misfired, would you misrember that? the fact that it's omitted is very telling to me
Posted on 1/29/26 at 2:28 pm to sgallo3
quote:
I feel like people are struggling to understand the difference between an imminent threat and a perceived threat.
no, it's more of being intellectually dishonest, than struggling with that fact...
Page 23 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News