Sounds like ICE's official word right now is that the guy had a gun.
But the video clearly indicates that they all tackled him to the ground and were wrestling him maybe 4 vs 1, before they all shot him together. I'm not quite sure how a gun can have come out of this. Maybe the guy while struggling on the ground happened to reach in the direction of someone's gun while getting curbstomped, I dunno.
What I'm most worried about is that Pam Bondi / Department of Justice refuses to investigate these or properly prosecute these cases. IE: The Renee Good case has a ton of FBI agents resigning because they've been told to focus on Good's "misbehavior" rather than the ICE Agent's aggression.
It will be up to the Minnesota police and justice system to investigate. We cannot expect anything from the DoJ/FBI here. As such, the prosecution case will be gimped, and I fear we will have nothing resembling justice in this case (or Renee Good's case either).
> At a news conference, Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said the man who was shot was a 37-year-old white man with no serious criminal history and a record that showed some parking tickets. Law enforcement sources said Saturday their records show Pretti had no serious criminal history.
> O'Hara said the man was a “lawful gun owner” with a permit. Records show that Pretti attended the University of Minnesota. State records show Pretti was issued a nursing license in 2021, and it remains active through March 2026.
> Q: Do I have to disclose to a peace officer that I am a permit holder and carrying a firearm?
> A: Yes, upon request of a peace officer, a permit holder must disclose to the officer whether or not the permit holder is currently carrying a firearm.
So a U.S. citizen who is a legal, permitted gun owner with no outstanding criminal charges, legally carrying in public, who complies with the law and informs a DHS officer that they are legally carrying, is effectively subject to summary execution without due process. (The penalty for permitted carrying without possessing the physical permit card is $25 for a first offense and forfeiture of the weapon; it would've been his first offense per Minneapolis police.)
If ever there was a 2A violation, it's a federal officer shooting and killing a legal gun owner solely for possessing a gun in their presence.
Possessing a fire arm and having an encounter with law enforcement in the united states has long been a death sentence. You can find a multitude of videos online of cops doing stuff like getting the wrong address and beating on someones door and when that person opens the door with a gun in their hand and then the cops open fire, happens all the time.
But this person did not even have a gun in his hand. He had a gun on him, concealed. In fact, the video shows another ICE agent walking up to him and digging it out and taking it away. The execution happened after all of that.
The most likely situation is that he actually voluntarily told them that he has a firearm because he is a lawful gun owner with a concealed carry permit. Most gun owners know that this is the best way to interact with law-enforcement, for example, when you get pulled over. But we will not know because these agents do not wear body cams on purpose.
Oh, I completely agree in addition to murdering this man they violated his second amendment rights and will continue to violate them in justifying his murder.
To me, this looks very much like testing the waters. Stephen Miller said, "To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity." ICE has blocked state law enforcement from investigations into the killings. ICE has said they're done with their investigation of the last one, and those fuckers are still working.
>The most likely situation is that he actually voluntarily told them that he has a firearm because he is a lawful gun owner with a concealed carry permit. Most gun owners know that this is the best way to interact with law-enforcement, for example, when you get pulled over. But we will not know because these agents do not wear body cams on purpose.
People have differing opinions, however the opinion most persuasive to me is you only tell them if asked unless the law requires otherwise. Volunteering you have a gun when there is no requirement to do so in my opinion adds unnecessary tension to the situation. IDK about in Minnesota, but in my state there is no duty to inform the police and you can basically only downsides to doing so, since they will be asking before you get into any situation where they're going to be going into your waistband to find out.
In one of the states I lived in, IIRC they changed the law to remove duty to inform because their cops had a history of executing people that informed them.
The bundies had a whole militia, and the last time federal LEO challenged a militia of his size (Waco) they had like 700+ casualties due to inspiring McVeigh (he was there). They basically lost 20:1 versus the Davidians.
Cliven Bundy is still grazing his cattle on that BLM land to this day.
The bargain with law enforcement has always been that ostensibly if you comply, they will take you in peacefully. For obvious reasons, this is highly advantageous to both parties.
It seems like a foolish choice for them to reneg on this. They are essentially signaling that you are a trapped rat with no way out.
That’s true if you want to keep the peace. The way to read their actions is that they’re trying to incite violence.
If Trump can incite violence then he can invoke the insurrection act, or perhaps declare some form of martial law to seize more power. Perhaps even parlay this into cancelling the midterm elections.
I don't think the phrasing of "confront law enforcement" is right here, in a period of about 20 seconds he went from helping a woman who had been pushed, to maced in the face, to dead. This is not confrontation, you can literally see him clutching the woman he had previously been helping up in a panic after they were sprayed with chemicals.
But setting all of that aside (which is a big aside), even if he was confronting them with his camera while armed, the whole bullshit shtick of the second amendment is that being armed should not be a crime much less a death sentence. He did not brandish his weapon or threaten law enforcement in any of the half dozen videos that have been released so far. To be even more clear as a citizen you are allegedly supposed to be protected from summary execution/judgement with or without the possession of a firearm, in many legal circles the possession of a firearm grants you more protections under the law not less.
They had him pinned to the ground and disarmed when they shot him in the back, based off the various analyses of the videos. So the shooting is going to be very hard to justify (though they'll try really hard, and so will you it seems).
> Private citizens on the street confronting law enforcement
What actions are you alleging qualifies as confronting? Be specific. Unless I have a wildly different definition of confronting, everything I've read and every video I've seen from different angles shows the opposite.
(This is setting aside the fact that having a concealed carry permit and carrying a legal firearm is not a death sentence in this country.)
The friends I know with concealed carry tend to keep it on them to feel safe, and partly just out of habit / feeling fulfilled in exercising their 2A right.
Not related to this situation, but in the city I live in, it's better to keep it on your person than in your car because kids are breaking into cars precisely because they know people from the suburbs visiting downtown might have one in their glove box.
Yes, I would, for the same reason I refuse to say anything at the border other than "I'm an American citizen," and for the same reason I refuse to say a word to the police during a traffic stop other than "I reserve my fifth amendment right to remain silent."
Rights aren't rights if you don't get to actually use them.
Right now Americans are learning the lessons of the black panthers: constitutionally protected "rights" are only rights so long as your flexing of them isn't inconvenient to the State. We've been shouting this at McMilitias for decades now.
Have you considered why? It's telling that you haven't answered my question: How exactly did the victim confront law enforcement?
I can't speak for everyone here but frankly, I find these "Would you do X?" questions irrelevant and I struggle to see a good faith reason for asking them. I can think of many bad faith reasons, for example shifting blame to the victim to remove focus from the border patrol agents' actions. Or a more charitable interpretation is you view this as a simple matter of cause and effect: if he didn't bring a gun he'd still be alive; or perhaps, if he stayed home altogether he'd still be alive. Is that your motivation for asking these questions?
Setting aside the fact that no, we don't know those things to be true, I don't think that interpretation of your intent is much better. But you also haven't been forthcoming with why you're placing so much importance on these questions.
He wasn't screaming at them, he was filming them and then later helping up someone else who had been assaulted by them. Not that it should matter, screaming at the feds is protected first amendment activity.
Sorry. I shouldn't have said screaming. That's usually what I see in all this but he did not obey orders from the agents so the same question still applies. Why would anyone go to such an area armed with a weapon? Would you do that?
I would probably not do that, but it's not illegal to carry a gun. Who knows if he set out to protest or if he just was in the area and spontaneously decided to record when he observed federal agents? He could be one of many Americans who carry a gun regularly. Maybe he didn't intend to do any protesting or anything at all.
I don't see any evidence that he was resisting. His hands were on the ground and he allowed himself to be disarmed. I did not hear any commands before the dogpile and subsequent gunshots. If I'm missing something please tell me what to listen for in the videos and I'll watch again.
The implication being that summary execution is a perfectly acceptable punishment for not immediately falling on the ground with your hands behind your back when a “law enforcement” goon eve looks at you?
Lol, here we go again. "If you do not obey the orders of the execution squad as they are killing you, then their killing you is justified. After all, they are lAw eNfOrCeMeNt!!!1!!"
> So a U.S. citizen who is a legal, permitted gun owner with no outstanding criminal charges, legally carrying in public, who complies with the law and informs a DHS officer that they are legally carrying, is effectively subject to summary execution without due process.... a federal officer shooting and killing a legal gun owner solely for possessing a gun in their presence.
> "The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming."
And then, from the DHS:
> ...when a federal agent feared for his life, "an agent fired defensive shots." ... Border Patrol Cmdr. Greg Bovino said that the officer involved in the shooting "has extensive training," and that "the situation is evolving." Bovino added that the incident would be investigated.
(TFA includes the claim of self-defense.)
"Summary execution" and "without due process" is emotionally manipulative phrasing. It falsely implies that LEO use of lethal force is about punishment. It is not about punishment. It is about responding to perceived threat.
All this stuff about permit cards, the victim's lack of criminal history, etc. is irrelevant. It is not connected to the motivation for the shooting. There is nothing to establish that the shooting was "solely for" that possession, and LEO denies that claim. There is no plausible universe in which the officer says "please show me the permit for that weapon", Pretti says "I don't have it", and the officer shoots. But that's the narrative you appear to be trying to push.
> The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) posted on X further details about what led up to the shooting. "DHS law enforcement officers were conducting a targeted operation in Minneapolis against an illegal alien wanted for violent assault, an individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, seen here," the post reads.
> O'Hara said that Pretti was a “lawful gun owner” with a permit.
> "The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming."
> The DHS wrote that when a federal agent feared for his life, "an agent fired defensive shots." The post also noted that the "suspect" had "2 magazines and no ID."
By any ordinary reading of prose, the article is attributing the quote to O'Hara.
The statement you say was O'Hara was made by McLaughlin (DHS employee). If the article implies otherwise, it's incorrect.
Here's the facts as I see them:
A protestor who had a gun he was legally allowed to carry got involved in an incident with ICE/Border Patrol. The protestor was interacting with the agents and other protestors, at which point BP or ICE pepper sprayed him and took him down to the ground. At least 4 different federal officers were physically holding him. at this point it appears they disarmed him (unclear) and then shortly after, shot him.
At no point did the protestor hold the gun in a threatening way while approaching, when he was taken down he did not have a gun in his hands, and while down, it's very unlikely he could access the gun and use it in a way that any reasonable officer would feel unsafe and be required to shoot the protestor.
Based on the videos I've watched, the protestor made some ill-advised choices getting physically involved, but there was no reason for him to be shot. I read various online conservative communities (to try to understand their reasoning) and nearly all the posts I see seem to think that ICE/BP truly made an error here, possibly due to poor training.
I understand your point about the use of emotional terms, I try to avoid them and instead focus on facts and known unknowns, but in this particular situation, it's pretty clear that ICE/BP made an egregious error in a way that is clearly obvious to everybody (even those who would normally support the federal officers) and in denying this, the federal leadership is undermining itself. This is a situation where they could de-escalate and not immediately blame the protestor, while focusing on increasing the training of the ICE/BP officers, rather than taking an aggresive posture.
This would imply it was an unintentional mistake which is far from obvious. If they recognized it was an egregious error the perpetrators would be prosecuted and they won’t be.
> training of the ICE/BP officers
What makes you think it’s something they want to avoid repeating in the future? (Not /s)
My wife who is very offline saw a Bovino photo yesterday and asked me point blank “why is he dressed like a Nazi? he looks like that guy from Man In The High Castle”
I guess I use the term "authoritarian cosplay" or maybe "authoritarian LARP" but he's taken it further than just play and posturing. He seems to truly idolize and identify with the authoritarians of the past.
What I also find extraordinary is that there is no consistent uniform, for example if you watch the video this post refers to, all the agents are wearing random combinations of personal clothing ("tactical" or "hunting") which makes them look more like a militia than federal officers.
This is the sort of federal policing force the libertarian right always conspiracy mongers about, and now that they are the ones in power its good, actually.
The language being used by the president to describe immigrants is on par with how the enemy was talked about during the war on terror. ICE has been told they are immune from prosecution, and the recruitment videos are basically white nationalist cosplay.
Now they are being surged, masked, poorly uniformed, poorly trained into US cities, as if they were Fallujah.
The problem is some are using only their ears to listen to what they are told happened by those responsible for and overseeing the officers involved and refusing you use their eyes and watch the videos. It seems some just want to believe (a lie) and not dig into know the truth.
A funny thing about the "stages of grief" is that they are a total myth and the originator of the hypothesis never intended them to be abused this way.
Elisabeth Kübler-Ross did her research solely on people who were dying: people with terminal illnesses, and she studied how they coped with facing their own mortality. Not how other people did.
And of course, even for a dying person, this may be total bunk. It is not like some programmed flowchart that people go through five stages of emotional stuff. This is just, like, a framework for further therapy.
I'm actually studying this stuff right now. In the 1980s and 1990s, "The Five Stages of Grief" were basically a household phrase, and everybody talked about them like they were real and true and invariable. But everyone doing the talking had never actually studied the research or even knew who proposed it. They were just parroting headlines.
(Ps I’m sad you deleted your comment to me in the other thread , I was enjoying our conversation, even if you seem a little emotionally disregulated and unstable)
Also, to be obviously, the statement you attributed to O'Hara is inconsistent with what he would say given his role.
While I totally appreciate that you don't like people using emotional verbiage or making false conclusions biased by their own beliefs, the reality here is that basically no objective independent observer would say that the government's statements are true and accurate. And I also think that careful analysis of the videos by that same observer would conclude the agents made an egregious error in the heat of the moment. Constantly doubling down about how you're the rational one, when there is ample evidence otherwise simply weakens your own position and makes people less likely to bother reading what you have to say.
DHS lies as easily as they breathe. They have proven they cannot be believed.
A previous example:
You can watch the video for yourself of an ICE masked thug grabbing a man's carotid artery, when NOT facing a deadly threat, against DOJ rules. You can watch him seize and his eyes roll back. And you can choose to believe your eyes or DHS' lies. What do you think, zahlman?
> In a social media post after the incident and in its statement to ProPublica, DHS did not cite a deadly threat. Instead, it referenced the charges against Zapata Rivera’s wife and suggested he had only pretended to have a medical crisis while refusing help from paramedics. “Imagine FAKING a seizure to help a criminal escape justice,” the post said.
> "Summary execution" and "without due process" is emotionally manipulative phrasing.
It's exactly what this was, though. He was disarmed before being shoved to the ground and beaten with a gas grenade. There is another video which shows that his hands are on the ground or in front of his face, the entire time he's down, long before he's shot.
I suspect it won't matter to you, but there's clear footage now of officers having removed the gun from the suspect long before he was shot. He was pinned and prone when he was executed. Claiming this was "defensive" is just a lie.
I've watched four videos but haven't seen any footage (clear or otherwise) of gun removal. Can you post a link to clear footage of the removal?
One video [1] shows someone walking away from the scene with a gun a fraction of a second before the shooting begins. But I can't see that the gun was removed from the protester.
Thanks. The link is to a Bellingcat analysis. They did great work on the Renee Good shooting, but in this case, they're describing stills from videos, and I can't see what they're seeing in the photos. The photos are just too fuzzy---at least for me, and I suspect for most other viewers.
I don't mean to diminish the importance of the shooting, which is horrific no matter what one makes of the photos.
I think it's factually correct to say that none of the videos give a truly clear view of the order of events (specfically with regards to whether the protestor could possibly have wielded their gun while being restrained by agents, or whether he is disarmed by the gray-jacketed agent, or what caused the agents to fire when they did).
It might be clearer if the agents were wearing bodycam videos and that footage was released.
I'm sure you'll still find something in there to quibble with, so have at it. Like, you can't see the guys hands, so maybe he had a second weapon! Could happen!
I don't know if this is your intent or not, but by engaging in this kind of framing you're essentially saying that all violence[1] is excusable by default. We're supposed to live in a society where the opposite is true, I thought.
[1] All violence by your allied authority figures, that is. We both know you wouldn't grant the same grace and charity to the intentions of the protestors.
I think you completely and totally misread my comment and incorrectly imputed my intent. I am in no way allied with ICE, what they are doing is abhorrent and wrong. I'm not sure why you're attacking me or assuming I have a position completely opposite of the one I have. I used caveat words- "I think it's factual". That's the way somebody states their subjective opinion of what they believe the facts are.
I have nothing to quibble with the video you linked (which I think must have been released since I made my comment, or I missed it), that makes the order of events a lot clearer, I can see the gun being taken now, and the timing of the shot.
> whether the protestor could possibly have wielded their gun while being restrained by agents, or whether he is disarmed by the gray-jacketed agent, or what caused the agents to fire when they did
Is a list of excuses for the shooting (to wit: "maybe he wielded the gun", "maybe he wasn't disarmed", "maybe they had cause to fire"). It's all things that would have (arguably) made it justified. You'll have to forgive me if I took that for a clear indication of your opinion here.
Like, if you look at something and say "Well, it looks like X happened, but I don't know", it's neutral. If you say "It looks like X happened, but I don't know because it could have been Y or Z instead', you're pretty clearly constructing a sideways argument that "X did not happen". And thus, you'll end up being painted as an X denialist by people on the internet too lazy to find your comment history.
LEO are also individuals who get due process rights. The law will generally require considering whether Y or Z happened if there's reason to suppose that it might have.
More importantly, when X is phrased in a way that implies intent or motives not in evidence, or plays up the injustice of X in legally irrelevant ways, that's reason to push back in an open Internet discussion.
> if there's reason to suppose that it might have.
That's the part that dekhn skipped above, and which I called out. In point of fact "Y and Z" are clearly shown to be false per the evidence, so pontificating about them amounts to pure spin. Creative storytelling in defense of a political point is very bad to begin with, doing it in defense of a killing is horrifying.
To dekhn's credit, he seems shamed enough to be yelling about the implication. I'm not sure that you've made that leap yet.
> but by engaging in this kind of framing you're essentially saying that all [state] violence is excusable by default
I disagree that it has that effect. With the assumption of good faith, comments like GP aren't fishing around for an excuse; the point is to highlight what's legally relevant and where there is room to disagree with the interpretation of video.
I don't think it's plausible that defense for the agents would clutch for a straw like "maybe he had a second weapon". That seems sarcastic and not interested in engaging with the argument seriously.
I've seen a couple different videos now (not from any links ITT) and the most commonly shown one seems to have something obscuring the camera at a critical moment. Nevertheless, it seems highly probable that the man is indeed disarmed well before the first shot. But there will still be more that matters:
* Was the first shot fired by an officer who knew that the weapon had already been taken? In particular, could there have been any miscommunication between the officers?
* Did the victim know the weapon had been taken? I don't think it would be likely to succeed in court, but to my understanding the defense could raise the argument that one or more officers perceived that the victim still intended to draw and fire it.
Ultimately, it boils down to establishing whether there was a reasonable perception, on the part of any officer that fired (I can't tell from the video I've seen who fired or how many shots or anything like that), of a threat from the victim meeting the legal standard to respond with lethal force. This is based on "totality of the circumstances" (as in things the officers knew leading up to the moment of shooting), but specifically based on what a reasonable officer would have been able to deduce in the moment (a high-pressure situation), without the benefit of hindsight.
Most analyses I've seen thus far agree that there was not any solid defense here. Certainly it seems much more likely that someone is going to prison for this than in the Renee Good case. The DHS says they will be investigating.
I can't hear or see them, no. The video footage available isn't high enough quality. There's too much chaos, people are using phones that they can't hold steady, etc.
> I don't know if this is your intent or not, but by engaging in this kind of framing you're essentially saying that all violence[1] is excusable by default. We're supposed to live in a society where the opposite is true, I thought.
> [1] All violence by your allied authority figures, that is. We both know you wouldn't grant the same grace and charity to the intentions of the protestors.
This is a disgraceful ad hominem attack. The previous poster's comment is entirely sensible, and it takes a great deal of intellectual dishonesty to portray it as a defense of ICE in any way.
So, yes, the second sentence in their [1] is a clear ad hominem but this is a pretty wild take:
> it takes a great deal of intellectual dishonesty to portray it as a defense of ICE in any way
Regardless of your opinion, I'll portray it as a defense of ICE, anyway.
> > So a U.S. citizen who is a legal, permitted gun owner with no outstanding criminal charges, legally carrying in public, who complies with the law and informs a DHS officer that they are legally carrying, is effectively subject to summary execution without due process.... a federal officer shooting and killing a legal gun owner solely for possessing a gun in their presence.
> This completely misrepresents what happened.
I don't strictly disagree with the idea that "solely for having a gun" is a misrepresentation, either (after all, the ICE agents had guns and they weren't executed), but it's not a "complete" misrepresentation. (The actual misrepresentation is that the victim was helping someone who was being abused by the agents and he had a gun.) Calling it a "complete misrepresentation" is seeking to emotionally prime the reader against the supposed illogic in the parent comment. That is indeed a defense of the ICE agents (and such defenses and excuses can be seen throughout their comment history, hence, I presume, the ad hominem).
Somehow, still, I doubt that's the framing zahlman would accept about the situation, especially given their (obvious) defense of ICE's actions in their initial comment. Yes, the ad hominem statement you refer to should not have been included. But it is surely not intellectually dishonest regardless of how inappropriate it is for this forum. Given the quote from their initial comment, it seems that said dishonesty cuts the other direction.
The ad hominem attack was addressed to dekhn, not me. So whether I defend ICE generally is irrelevant to assessing the accusation "We both know you wouldn't grant the same grace and charity to the intentions of the protestors."
But also, my defense is not about treating protestors uncharitably. Telling me "We both know you wouldn't grant the same grace and charity to the intentions of the protestors." would still be ad hominem, because my arguments do not rely upon protestors being malicious.
Except for the physical obstruction of justice aspect, which isn't in question. 1A doesn't give people the right to get in an LEO's way when that officer is actively trying to enforce law. Protestors shouldn't physically be in the path of on-duty law enforcement if they expect not to get arrested. Arrest is a natural consequence of "civil disobedience". For a more extreme example, "freedom of assembly" for me and my friends does not extend as far as "assembling" in a tight circle around you that denies your freedom of movement. (Note: I am neither an American citizen nor an American resident, but these principles are not difficult to understand, and not sufficiently different from Canadian law to matter for this discussion.)
But for example in the Good case, I don't believe she intended to run over the officer, but that doesn't matter to the officer's perception of threat. And in point of fact, he was struck (although NYT reported that he wasn't "run over", and then other outlets presented this as if he wasn't struck).
At no point did I claim not to be defending the ICE agents, so let's please not talk about intellectual dishonesty there.
----
Regarding the bit you quoted from me:
I responded prematurely to the situation based on my experience from every single previous discussion of ICE agents I found myself in. I don't see how there's a problem with offering a defense of ICE in general. You can't just say that one side of an argument is barred, if you're going to have a discussion at all. (And the reason HN permits political submissions like this is because they want people in tech to have discussions. The relationship of the story to tech is tangential at best.)
I said "completely misrepresents" because "solely for having a gun" is completely false, and because it should be rejected as absurd a priori. That's just not how entanglements with law enforcement play out, and ignores that probably many lawful gun owners were rightly ignored (given that MN allows concealed carry of handguns). People are seriously now arguing as if they believe that a Republican government is stripping away 2A rights by force. I don't understand how that could possibly pass anyone's sniff test.
But I also said it because it's part of a long string of loaded language — the stuff I went on to dissect. The victim's virtue is played up, seemingly to make the event seem more egregious, even though it's clearly irrelevant to the cause of action. Or else it's being played up to try to bolster the "solely for" case by denying other reasons for the shoot. Regardless of whether it was justified (I agree that it will likely not be found justified), the actual cause of action is clear.
(Having seen multiple videos now, I can't hear the part where Pretti supposedly "informs a DHS officer that he is legally carrying". The part where one of the officers is shouting about he has a gun, would seem to contradict that; because it comes across that the officer first saying it is surprised to see that he has a gun.)
Most importantly, "effectively subject to summary execution without due process" is an unreasonable way to characterize LEO use of lethal force, both in general and I believe in this specific instance. One or more people messed up and this guy shouldn't have gotten shot. But that is miles away from what it would actually take to justify that phrasing. That would require:
* everyone who shot could clearly see, from their own perspectives, that the gun had already been taken away;
* before firing, they took enough time to respond to that change in the situation;
* at the time of firing, they had the mens rea that the victim should die as punishment for what had happened up to that point.
These are simply things that you can't prove with video footage like this. I can't even tell who shot. It's a chaotic scramble recorded from distant third-person perspectives, with important parts of the action obscured from line of sight by other important parts of the action. Yes, there's enough to see the gun being taken away before gunshots (apparently) but that's a lucky break considering everything else. (When I first saw the footage from the angle on the street, I thought it was happening on the sidewalk rather than in front of the parked car; of course the other angle being from the sidewalk disproves that.)
Anyway, I simply can't fathom how you think that the term "complete misrepresentation" is "seeking to emotionally prime the reader". Like, what words could I possibly use instead that aren't supposedly emotionally manipulative, given that I actually did sincerely consider the statement a complete misrepresentation?
For that matter, I think your characterization "helping someone who was being abused by the agents and he had a gun." is still misrepresentative. He was obstructing and resisting. And, yes, he had a gun, which is dangerous any time one gets in a physical altercation with any kind of LEO. People with CC permits should understand that.
An ad hominem argument is an argument constructed around characteristics of a person outside the bounds of what is being discussed. Inferring someone's opinion[1] about the subject under discussion from their text, and explicitly marking so in my text when doing so, is just "debate". Am I wrong? Say I'm wrong and cite why.
Don't call me "disgraceful". Why? Because THAT is an ad hominem attack. In fact the clear offense being taken makes it pretty clear to me that my point landed closer than maybe you're prepared to admit.
[1] You cleverly skipped the point where I even admitted I might be wrong!
> An ad hominem argument is an argument constructed around characteristics of a person outside the bounds of what is being discussed.
"Ad hominem attack" is commonly used to just mean saying something insulting or uncharitable.
> Inferring someone's opinion
You accused that dekhn would treat people unfairly, based on no apparent evidence:
> We both know you wouldn't grant the same grace and charity to the intentions of the protestors.
This is an accusation that the other person is knowingly biased. And it is not, in fact, an inference of "opinion".
> Say I'm wrong and cite why.
There are reasons to object to a comment on the Internet other than being "wrong". Which is what's happening here.
> Don't call me "disgraceful". Why? Because THAT is an ad hominem attack.
You were not called "disgraceful". Your commentary was called disgraceful.
> In fact the clear offense being taken makes it pretty clear to me that my point landed closer than maybe you're prepared to admit.
The person taking offense, the person your comment referred to, and I (the person you originally replied to ITT) are three separate people.
> You cleverly skipped the point where I even admitted I might be wrong!
The only thing in your comment that could be interpreted as such as "I don't know if this is your intent or not"; but that does not refer to the commentary being called out here as an ad hominem attack.
And everyone else is annoyed by the fact that for some reason you still act like DHS isn't just continuously lying, repeating their statements as if they reflect what we all saw happen on video.
So you're saying you can show me a video where it's clear that the gun is in an LEO's physical possession, everyone involved clearly has time to update on this information, and someone makes an evidently conscious decision to shoot him anyway, despite him clearly no longer posing a physical threat?
Their decision to escalate the situation in the first place is a clear indication of that.
> no longer posing a physical threat?
Can you show a video of the gun leaving its holster before that then? Or are you saying that merely possessing a firearm regardless of circumstances is grounds for an immediate execution?
These are not the people who deserve benefit of the doubt. They have already amply demonstrated what they are capable of. Indeed, they even openly boast of it.
> "The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming."
This has already been proven to be a lie thanks to the five different videos of the incident in question. They shot him after removing his legal weapon for concealed carry that he was permitted to have on his person.
Here's the full incident [1] [2]. Watch [1], then [2]. The man in the gray coat is the one that retrieves the gun, before any shots are fired. Frankly if you don't change your opinion after this, then I'm going to either assume you're a federal agent attempting to maintain the propaganda line or so absolutely psychotic that you belong well and away from proper society.
Thanks. I watched the videos. It's a horrific event. But I can't see that either of the videos shows a gun being removed from a protester. At the end of [2], someone does seem to walk away from the scene holding a gun, just a fraction of a second before the shooting begins. But I can't see any point at which a gun is removed from a protester.
> Frankly if you don't change your opinion after this, then I'm going to either assume you're a federal agent attempting to maintain the propaganda line or so absolutely psychotic that you belong well and away from proper society.
I am not watching your videos just because you said this. I approached the situation with a respectful disagreeing opinion and the information available to me. Everyone else here is being unreasonable and completely in violation of commenting guidelines.
An agent of the state just murdered an innocent man in broad daylight and the president and his staff are lying about what happened, but you're choosing to remain ignorant because someone on HN wasn't sufficiently polite?
I was just going to leave it there since both of our comments were flagged for obvious reasons, but since it seems you're getting vouched I'll just say it up front: I don't give a shit how upset you are. Grow some thicker skin. If you're going to be upset that people push back against you spraying rancid takes all over the place then what are you even doing?
My patience level is now in the negatives with these kinds of posts, especially the ones that are more upset about people being mean to them than the execution of citizens using their constitutional rights.
Someone captured the beginning of the shooting victim’s interaction with ICE. It certainly doesn’t look as though the person is aggressive or brandishing a weapon.
The DHS public statement that the victim was going to “do maximize damage and massacre law enforcement” is outrageous…
ICE has regularly attacked protesters and bystanders who are simply recording, walking away and so on.
Even people just driving through their neighborhood have been dragged out of their vehicles and apprehended. Citizen or otherwise doesn’t seem to matter.
They aren’t professionals and operate with neither the training, nor the will to obey the law.
Much of the time they seem to believe trying to bait folks into an encounter
In my area all the non white folks don’t come to the bus stop anymore to pickup their kids. Their kids are instructed to race home after school. The schools now have lockdown protocols for ICE. Family businesses opened for decades closed because employees are afraid to come to work.
> They aren’t professionals and operate with neither the training, nor the will to obey the law.
Many of them are experienced and trained. The man who shot Renee Good served in Iraq, worked for Border Patrol for two decades and was literally a firearms instructor[1].
This is just what cops, reactionaries and psychopaths will do when they know that they have carte blanche to do anything they want, including murder.
No amount of "training" will fix this. It isn't an accident, it isn't incompetence, it is deliberate and wanton.
Yes. Stepping in front of cars to give reason to shoot occupants was a repeated pattern in the Border Patrol, while against standard practice for most law enforcement.
So assuming it's random lack of training when he does it again seem far too charitable.
He also has a history of doing exactly this before. It's the second time he was "struck" by a moving vehicle after purposely putting himself in his purported harms way. Who knows how many times he's practiced for this murder before.
If the video somehow didn't do it, the "fucking bitch" not even seconds after pulling the trigger would put any one of us away for murder.
It is so strange seeing local cops deal with crowds vs ICE. ICE is just looks like a mob milling about. Some taking time to argue with protesters, others wandering alone aimlessly.
Local cops dealing with protesters are organized, rarely trying to bait anyone into anything.
These numbers are hard to compare. It seems that ICE's killing rate in kills per serving man hour is outrageously high, but I don't have numbers on this.
They've already breached churches and hospitals to extract people. And they've already arrested 5-year-old minors. Its only a matter of time before they move to schools.
> ICE has regularly attacked protesters and bystanders who are simply recording, walking away and so on.
> Even people just driving through their neighborhood have been dragged out of their vehicles and apprehended. Citizen or otherwise doesn’t seem to matter.
I have seen many claims of this sort, but every single time there's been video available of the incident, it's become clear to me that nothing of the sort is going on. The people "being dragged out of vehicles" have been refusing lawful orders and then being arrested for it. The people "simply recording" are physically interfering with ICE going where they need to go to do what they're there to do. "Walking away" doesn't remotely describe anything I've seen.
As for the race issue, the ICE officers I've seen have been considerably more racially diverse than the protesters.
But no, being a citizen does not, in fact, matter if you are breaking federal law in the presence of a federal agent, and that law includes obstruction of federal justice. All of this is extremely clear in law. Please have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NosECXHMGFU.
----
This comment, like many others I've made on the topic, has been completely illegitimately flagged. I'm getting rather tired of that. There's nothing objectionable or counter to guidelines in the above, and all of it reflects my true thoughts based on my actual experience of the discourse, the evidence available to me, the legal code I've researched, etc.
It perhaps just doesn't agree with your point of view.
You're being flagged for good reason, you're not a victim here.
You refuse to watch the videos, but you're still defending the regime. Why?
I question the moral integrity of anyone who would defend this administration without all the available info.
I'm glad you're being flagged, because I've been disappointed with how folks here have been surprisingly flaccid when it comes to condemning this regime. The day that I come here and find posts like yours in the majority will be the last day I visit.
I've been here since 2016. I have never, not even once, downvoted any comment on HN. Today I downvoted every single of that person's comment in this thread. That discourse does not deserve to be heard, much less to occupy attention and debate.
Can you please explain to me how it violates HN guidelines in any way? Or how any of it is untrue? For example, do you disagree that 8 U.S. Code § 1357, as cited, empowers ICE to arrest US citizens without a warrant in specific circumstances, specifically relating to obstructing them from doing their original job? Do you disagree that ICE are, contra the public claims of Walz and Frey, LEO? Did you see my submission https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46596055, and can you articulate a problem with it?
I already explained repeatedly: I responded hastily based on priors, and then responded poorly to someone who insulted me.
When I initially said:
> All this stuff about permit cards, the victim's lack of criminal history, etc. is irrelevant. It is not connected to the motivation for the shooting. There is nothing to establish that the shooting was "solely for" that possession, and LEO denies that claim. There is no plausible universe in which the officer says "please show me the permit for that weapon", Pretti says "I don't have it", and the officer shoots. But that's the narrative you appear to be trying to push.
Do you think any of that is incorrect? Which part specifically, and why?
I just vouched for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46748563 , which was flagged and killed. Do you think it violates HN guidelines? How exactly? Because I legitimately don't understand.
> The people "being dragged out of vehicles" have been refusing lawful orders and then being arrested for it.
"Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'"
— Martin Luther King Jr.
> But no, being a citizen does not, in fact, matter if you are breaking federal law in the presence of a federal agent, and that law includes obstruction of federal justice.
“The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.”
— Henry David Thoreau
> All of this is extremely clear in law.
“Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.”
— Henry David Thoreau
Amongst other stuff you just said.. not everything a law enforcement officer says is a lawful order by definition. If they are running around harassing, assaulting and arresting people with a due cause that’s still illegal.
Who are you to judge what is a legal order and what is illegal, right on the spot? Is some authority instructing you about the legality of orders in advance, and giving you a "legal/illegal" flowchart to follow when things get real hot? Do angels of light sit perched on your shoulders whispering advice?
When the pepper spray is pointed at your face and they are screaming "BACK UP" what do you do? Scream back "dat's illegal! muh muh rights!!1" What do you do when the flash-bangs and tear-gas canisters explode? Cover your nostrils with your extra-thick copy of the Bill of Rights?
I mean, law enforcement was speaking to the press today, saying they're not interested in "herding you to safety" or protecting people who are actively interfering. They would much rather if you weren't there at all. The job would be done expediently. But if people choose to impede stuff, and defend and protect child molesters, drug smugglers, rapists, murderers, kidnappers, sex offenders, gun runners, then you get a war zone. This is how you get war zones. By defending and protecting the indefensibly guilty.
This is some peak "sovereign citizen" stuff right here. All you lefties screaming about "warrants" and "rights" and "kidnapping" and "jackboots" are SovCit in disguise. You have written your own constitution and you're carrying it out in the streets. Good luck, SovCits.
> I have seen many claims of this sort, but every single time there's been video available of the incident, it's become clear to me that nothing of the sort is going on.
Have you considered the potential bias that people are dragged out of their cars before they can start recording video? Perhaps the dragging out of the car happens while nobody is recording them, then people see and start recording for posterity. That seems an obvious assumption. Do you have reason to think otherwise such that you can dismiss others' reports with intellectual honesty rather than motivated reasoning?
> This comment, like many others I've made on the topic, has been completely illegitimately flagged. I'm getting rather tired of that.
> It perhaps just doesn't agree with your point of view.
I don't really agree with the flags but this casual dismissal of "you just don't like it" is not helping you to understand the actual reasons others may have to flag (and downvote, which I do agree with). For example, maybe others watched the videos and think there is no way to justify what they saw. To such an individual, seeing someone try to justify it might look like trolling regardless of said someone's self-perception of their commentary. You will get nowhere merely complaining about the flags and downvotes; they will keep coming (on this topic) until you start to comment more thoughtfully (on this topic), or not at all.
> Have you considered the potential bias that people are dragged out of their cars before they can start recording video?
All such video has been third-person perspective, so no.
> Perhaps the dragging out of the car happens while nobody is recording them, then people see and start recording for posterity.
In the cases where video shows events prior to the arrest, it shows justification for the arrest. Activists have a clear incentive to hide that justification. So why would I take claims at face value about the existence of unjustified arrests where nobody started recording before the arrest?
> Do you have reason to think otherwise such that you can dismiss others' reports with intellectual honesty rather than motivated reasoning?
The repeated prior experience of seeing people make reports, look them up, and find that they've been misrepresented, yes.
> For example, maybe others watched the videos and think there is no way to justify what they saw. To such an individual, seeing someone try to justify it might look like trolling
I disagree that this is a legitimate reason to flag a comment, according to my reading of the guidelines.
"The videos" doesn't refer to a specific set of videos. I'm talking here about cases where people claimed that something (not the incident that OP is about) had happened in a specific way, and I had already seen video that disproved the narrative. If they saw a different video, or a clip of the video, or a social media rumour, and their emotions are running high because they can't imagine a justification, that isn't my fault.
(For example, a sibling comment is pushing the "kidnapping and arresting" narrative for the child taken directly back to his home. We already saw during Trump's first term that the activists will raise hue and cry about "families being separated" by ICE; now they can't put the family together either.)
And I'm talking about cases where people bring up some other random thing that they totally know happened, that I haven't heard of at all, and they don't proactively bring evidence but how dare I not know about it. Always described with a flurry of emotionally charged language. My priors are that all of this will evaporate under scrutiny, because of what I have experienced before when trying to look into things. This extends generally to protests of this nature before the current administration's use of ICE, too.
And I'm talking about cases where people seem to have entirely wrong ideas about what the law actually permits. I get flagged, for example, when I make posts that consist of nothing but the evidenced truth about ICE's legal powers and what is or isn't a legitimate protest action. See e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46750452.
It's hard for me not to perceive that I get flagged for no reason other than being on "the wrong side" of a contentious political issue, because people can't fathom that an honest person who tries to research claims could possibly disagree with them so starkly in good faith.
But I do research these claims (although there's only so much time I'm willing to put into them).
I did research this story.
And I already previously reported back (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46750401) that I now generally agree that this specific shooting looks unjustified (certainly it at least requires an investigation, which I would have said anyway, like for any high-profile LEO use of lethal force).
I'm just not going to continue a direct chain of replies with people who openly insult me. I'm still human.
Meanwhile, comments where people just openly go "Nazi, Nazi, Nazi", "fascist, fascist, fascist", spewing outrage without substance, stay visible incognito.
> You will get nowhere merely complaining about the flags and downvotes; they will keep coming (on this topic) until you start to comment more thoughtfully (on this topic), or not at all.
Tell me what legal rationale ICE had to detain and kidnap a 5 year old US citizen.
Tell me the legal rationale for ICE abducting an employee from a Target beating him up and dropping him off bruised and covered in blood at Walmart at miles away.
ICE has been turned into a paramilitary political
mafia to harass and harm the administrations political opponents and racial outgroups.
They've repeatedly been found in federal court to have violated the constitutional rights of citizens and non-citizens alike but Congress has shown no spine to reign in the executive which has willfully spurned these rulings.
Turn the blind eye to this at your own peril. History has shown that fascism does not stop acting only against people that you disagree with
Pam Bondi's Department of Justice will be worse. They're the ones who are in charge of investigating this. I expect the FBI under her to support ICE and defend them with all their might.
The checks and balances at the federal level are all captured. Support Minnesota in this troubling time.
The very first thing Trump administration did after assuming office was fire almost all the Inspectors General. Seems obvious, foreboding and foreshadowing, it was to sweep away any independent oversight and accountability.
Oh boy the hand waving away at the time. Now the other shoe is dropping.
Hmm... well maybe I need to explain my fear better.
Because Pam Bondi/DoJ refuses to prosecute these cases, this will _keep happening_ for the foreseeable future. There's no reason for ICE to stop this behavior.
Its not today's crime that scares me most. Its the easily predicted future where this gets worse by next month.
The converse is the rise of the far-left. We're already seeing Black Panther patrol with long-guns rise up in these times in response to this. I expect more guns and more deadly force, and no one is doing anything to put a stop to it.
--------
The left is losing faith in strictly peaceful protest. At least some of them (ie: the Black Panthers forming patrol militia).
The right refuses to prosecute murders. This is the worse problem.
Where does this lead? Is it too late to stop? Its easily stopped if Pam Bondi simply did an investigation into the use of deadly force. That's the saddest part of all of this.
Don't bother replying, youre going to make some argument about how that was a non peaceful protest because of the politics, but this was a peaceful protest despite the government violence.
these are not cops, these are federal agents, its very different, and they are suppossed to be even more beholden to the constitution as they are not operating in a frame of states rights based legislation.
the DOJ won't and that's why it happened again only a few days after Renee Good, and will continue to happen.
It's not just that the DOJ won't investigate. It's actively preventing the state from investigating either.
if this continues, it's going to explode, and I think that's part of the plan, to provide cover for invoking the Insurrection Act and imposing martial law
Law enforcement is one thing but when Washington sends war-fighters into a state against the will of the state's leadership, somebody has got to be prepared to take some casualties if there is any resistance.
The greater the force and amount of armament, the worse it can end up becoming.
It wasn't good when it happened in the 19th century either.
War-fighter is a generous description given the preparedness of the agents they’re sending. This is how they’re behaving against disorganized whistle-blowing confrontational citizens, not e.g. an ideologically-motivated separatist militia.
I know what you mean when the lack of training and integrity stands out.
What I see is that some of them seem to display even more of a killer attitude than professional soldiers, and bring a whole additional supply of firepower to each scene when they arrive that was not in the equation before.
With that level of highly-armed government-initiated risk introduced, it looks like in almost any neighborhood where there is normally about zero yearly risk of someone being killed, when the "troops" are sent in the risk skyrockets.
On a daily basis too which is too frequent to ignore and a virtually incalculable increase, but you don't need numbers to see how bad it is.
Well it looks like it's time to say bye-bye to the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms in the US, right?
NRA and all that notwithstanding it seems if you're bearing arms you will be shot. Interesting times.
It's hard to argue the guy was even bearing arms. He just kneeled and stoically accepted his execution. And then the people surrounding him asked the feds to please not do that.
It's always been strange to me that Americans are allowed to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights...until they get killed by police. Then they should've known not to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
You might as well imagine no religion while you're at it. It's easy if you try... but it's not going to happen.
So we might as well stop arguing that the government should have a monopoly on tools of violence. These people should be afraid of us, and not the other way around.
The group of Americans who are the loudest at cheering for the 2nd Amendment rights are cheering for ICE these days. To them, "the security of a free State" means that it has a caste system with the "good guys" at the top, and when ICE goons execute Minnesotans, they see brave armed citizens fighting back against the tyranny of wokeness.
Everything makes much more sense when you realize that the conservative project is not about universal application of rights. It is a system of hierarchies. They have rights. We do not. They can carry firearms. We are violent maniacs trying to massacre cops (according to Bovino) and deserve what's coming.
The 2nd amendment was more about suppressing slave revolts than liberating slaves.
What I've observed is that Americans like to put themselves higher than other cultures due to their second amendment rights (and first, but that's neither here nor there), but when push comes to shove there's actually no real positive outcomes that come from having a country with it's citizens armed to the extent that Americans are.
And we've seen what allowing people to promote hate speech with no restraint does to a nation.
When it's over, and it will be, Americans need to start from scratch, iterate and write a new constitution, create new institutions and build a new system.
We've also seen what very rigid hate speech policing does to a nation in Germany... and AfD seems to be doing pretty well.
It's almost as if those laws are mostly just performative bullshit that doesn't actually prevent the spread of violent ideologies when the environment is conductive to them.
Fair, but we need to account for the influence of the 1st-amendment-propelled far right discourse in the US on German politics to know how (in)effective German speech laws are.
Even if they guy had a gun, it's left to see what actually transpired here. Whether the guy owned the gun, had firearm permit and even if he had a public and/or concealed gun permit.
That's already been revealed by Minnesota Police (thank goodness we at least have some degree of independent investigations going on right now).
1. Only had parking tickets on his criminal record. No other criminal activity.
2. Owned a gun with firearms permit.
3. 36 Years Old, male. EDIT: I misremembered. Its apparently 37 year old male.
Minnesota Police only have jurisdiction inside of Minnesota however. So those four+ ICE shooters just need to leave the state and they're safe. The FBI is required to pursue across state lines.
None of that should really matter here. He didn't have his gun when he was shot the first time. He wasn't moving after the first shot and the 5 shots later were completely unnecessary and dangerous to the general public.
This sort of hair splitting is gross. Even if he illegally possessed the gun, the execution wasn't justified. He was not brandishing and nobody was in danger because of his possession of the gun.
Based on the history of interactions I’ve had with you, you didn’t have your interest piqued, you were looking for a reason that it could be blamed on the victim for information that the shooter had no way of knowing prior to pulling the trigger.
Don’t “apparently” this crowd when you are obviously JAQing off.
I'm pretty sure you're the same guy I told I'm for completely open borders, but somehow you got it in your head I'm trying to make excuses for ICE. I'm also of the opinion that the second amendment also applies to illegal immigrants, though the courts generally don't agree with this. But you decided I said some things you consider "right wing" earlier so I must agree with whatever Trump's Gestapo is doing.
The truth is, I couldn't even wrap my head around why they were even arresting the guy, because I couldn't understand why they were going after someone with a permit, which usually requires legal status. My interest relates to the fact that if the federal courts in his jurisdiction didn't agree out of status had 2A rights, and he had a valid permit and legally owned a gun, it should establish he shouldn't be of interest to ICE.
That ship has sailed so long ago it's beyond the horizon at this point. Of course the right is going to defend this. We know exactly how this will play out. They will respond just like they have to every other assault and murder committed by ICE in the past year.
The top people in govt all the way down will completely lie about the victim and situation, despite plenty of video evidence that shows them as liars. Absolutely nothing will happen to these scumbag murderers, and another murder just like this will happen again soon.
Many people will be horrified but conservatives will continue cheering this on. This is the country we live in now.
All the blathering about "freedom", "democracy", and "constitutional rights" is just propaganda you've been spoon-fed since you were a child. The USA has spent the last 80 years riding the wave of contributing to the victory in WWII and therefore being the "Good Guys", and most of the Western world happily played along as their political goals aligned with it.
Meanwhile the USA hasn't addressed its deeply-rooted internal issues which have been festering for well over a century, and the results are now obvious to everyone. It only took Trump a year to make the US an international laughing stock, start a bunch of wars, get rid of the free press, and begin rounding up people he doesn't like.
If the USA you were taught to believe in truly existed, the current situation would not have been possible.
Nah. I was taught by the actions of neighbors. I was taught by my school becoming less segregated in California and becoming majority latino and no one caring. I was taught by my grandfather, what he did in his life, and how he lived.
I was 'taught' through experiencing something good becoming more good. Get out of here with your doomerism toxicity. You talk like the non-political Russians talk about their country. The USA is not irredeemable.
I just want to thank you for taking the time to reply so thoughtfully to someone who is so intent on letting it all go to shit just so they can think themselves enlightened by predicting it.
I have the same response to people who ask me why I don’t leave the country since things are going so bad: fuck that, this is my home. I will always love this country. It is never beyond saving. We have been through worse (the civil war at the very most obvious, but there are plenty of other low points.) We can get through this. We can make it better, we can learn to love our neighbor again, we can learn to trust each other again. We can learn to avoid these tendencies towards hatred. We can’t give up.
They had him pinned on the ground, then someone takes a gun away from him, and AFTER THAT they put him on his knees and executed him.
Additionally, there are many other videos of the agents, taking phones away from the nearby witnesses who recorded all of this.
But the most disturbing thing is that the claims made by DHS, Trump, and Noem about what happened were completely made up. They are simply inventing a story and getting it out there as quickly as possible to refute any other competing story. It does not matter to them that this is a lie. The idea is to muddy the waters.
From a purely theoretical standpoint, what should the family victims do then, in a country where rule of law is not being applied anymore?
If these deaths will go unpunished - and Alex Pretti's is already well documented and clear EXECUTION - what are the direct consequence as a society with a 2nd amendment?
Don't bother interacting with the other guy. He's a known troll that comes to every discussion about ICE and tries to put the blame on the victim, and then rants about Obama for some reason.
This guy is in full support of the recent ICE murders. Moderation still hasn't banned the guy, of course.
There's no incentive for moderation to take action as long as it aligns with their "curious discussion" initiative, regardless of how disruptive they are to the forum as a whole. It's basically sealioning.
If someone is going in to a situation where they know there are armed riot police, armed federal agents, armed and agitated protestors, and several people have already been unalived, I would call them nothing but "suicidal" to carry their own weapon into that situation. Suicidal. Even when concealed and unused. Suicidal.
Of course they would be suicidal to go into that situation unarmed, as well. But carrying a weapon would be double-plus-ungood and guaranteed to make them a target for unaliving, sticking out from amongst the crowd bearing rocks and sticks or even Molotov cocktails.
The man was a Veterans Administration ICU nurse who cared for sick veterans that was helping a woman that ICE pushed to the ground and then used chemical weapons on. There are quite a few doctors giving testimonials to this man's character at the VA.
The right will tell you that an awful/chaotic world is one where a male ICU nurses helps a woman pushed to the ground and sprayed in the face with less lethal weapons by government jackboots wearing masks.
The right will tell you that a sane/reasonable world is one where that man is extra-judicially murdered and the woman taken into government custody.
Alex Pretti was a good man, who cared about our nation's veterans, who was murdered for defending a woman while exercising his lawful rights as an American (the Second Amendment and First Amendment). I didn't want to leave your statement slandering the murdered man un-contested as to the situation.
Alex was doing what we are taught being an American means, and he was killed by masked government thugs because of it. And bootlickers now justify murdering people because they dared exercise their first and second amendment rights and challenged masked government agents. Bootlickers that want us to live in fear of our own government. We have the right to exercise our Constitutional rights free of risk from our own government's masked thugs.
There is video. There was no riot by any standard.
How do you know how he got there? How do you know he wasn't already there when ICE arrived? You are making assumptions in order to cast a non-evidence supported judgement.
I didn't realize the second amendment limited magazine amount.
Yes, a man tried to help up a woman who was pushed to the ground by ICE and stopped further (illegal) excessive assault/battery by ICE. That was the extent he 'imposed' himself.
The man videoed on his camera, first amendmendment protected activity that is not considered impeding ICE.
ICE are not in fact allowed to use lethal force against impediment.
His character matters when you try to paint a picture that is completely untrue and portray him as doing something he didn't and make him out to be some agitator like the government did the last person ICE murdered or the bombastic and unsupported emotionally charged language you choose to use. You calling out/policing language use while using the emotionally charged (and unsupported) language you do is classic internet cry-bully bullshit.
I understand your position is that people can hide at home from the government thugs wearing masks. I understand your position this man should die because he tried to help a woman up. I understand your position this man should die because he videoed government agents (or in your words impeded) wearing masks. I understand your position that law enforcement can murder people when they are impeded (even though legally they can't do that). I understand that you support an absolute garbage position that is based on and backed by nothing and is the opposite of American.
You fundamentally don't understand America or Americans. You fundamentally don't understand the Constitution or the rights we by nature have, and that it protects (not grants).
Continue to disparage a man murdered by our government. Continue to point out he was murdered for exercising his constitutional rights. Maybe at some point you will piece it together instead of saying it was justified because he dared exercise his rights. Probably not, you seem pretty set in your ways. But maybe, just maybe you will understand that no American is justified to be murdered by their government for exercising their constitutional rights. And that down the path you lay out lies only bondage and government oppression.
You keep trying to point to magazine capacities as if a Veterans Administration ICU nurse that cared for our veterans, whose malicious act sparking his death was helping a woman up, was somehow nafarrious/justified murdered because he was 'second amendmenting too hard'. Again goes back to why I highlighted who this man Alex was. You want to imply something but not outright say it. Like you want to hide at home instead of exercise scary constitutional rights.
> The video clearly shows him resisting arrest and reaching for something.
The video clearly shows the grey-masked (EDIT: Grey-hat, green mask) ICE Agent taking the gun and running away with it before everyone else shoots him.
Also, I'm inclined to believe the "arrest" was an illegal arrest to begin with. I had a big post about how police procedure and due process is supposed to work but I know no one gives a crap about due process anymore, so forget it.
It’s pretty clear that the person assaulting the woman in the orange backpack was the ICE agent. The ICE agent forcefully pushes the woman to the ground and Alex Pretti gets in between them to protect her as the ICE agent pepper sprays both of them. Orange backpack tries to stand up but is continually pepper sprayed and Alex Pretti uses his body to block the spray and is pushed/slips back onto orange backpack. It then seems like he grabs hold of her to block the spray and tries to lift her from the ground before the agents grab hold of him and pulls her away. At that point, he’s still holding onto her so she gets dragged as well.
>"The video clearly shows him resisting arrest and reaching for something."
Tell me the EXACT time in the video you see this happen.
In the video, there are 4 ICE agents on him and there's not ONE frame where the tackled protester reaches for ANYTHING with his arm/hand. There is, however, a gray-masked ICE agent consistently reaching for what appears to be the protestor's sidearm. And at 0:17, the ICE agent that shoots first reached for his own sidearm, and the ICE agent next to him retrieves what appears to be the protestor's concealed firearm at the same time, and walks away from the pile with it BEFORE shots are even fired. The "threat" - the protestor's right to bear arms - was eliminated before a shot.
There is not a single indication that ICE agents were in danger from anyone besides each other. If he was shot dead for possession, there's your answer for 2A, right there. They're shooting people like dogs in broad daylight for recording police interactions (1A) and possessing a firearm (2A), the tree of liberty needs replenishment.
They're 100% going to investigate, and intimidate, the Red-coat lady in the background, and the dead guy on the ground so that they have political fodder / some kind of character-assassination excuse for why this was all justified.
And when you're unlawfully murdered, you have no recourse. They do not care what you tell them, and if you don't resist, you're potentially dead anyway. They have arrested lawful immigrants and citizens, and held them illegally, in some cases for weeks or months.
"Comply and you might get lucky and survive" is not a life safety strategy. I'm unsure where this idea to not resist someone who is very likely to kill you without cause (based on all of the evidence and observations to date) is coming from to be frank.
cops are most deceptive when they are smiling, even if it seems like an aside comment, when that big fake smile is there, they are trying to soft extract something from you [P.E.A.C.E.]
You seem to not believe they’re murdering people without justification, so there’s no common ground to be had. You will likely always believe their lethal force is justified, regardless of facts, so we are at an impasse.
> The two most recent events were both taped, both seemed to be justified in using force. If a tape comes out where someone is killed and they're not fighting ICE agents or hitting them with a car, then I'll agree that it wasn't justified.
Resisting an ICE agent is not a lawful use of lethal force. If you believe it is, you are mistaken and you are free to speak with a legal professional to update your mental model on the topic. Again, we are likely at an impasse based on your belief system (as your statements make it clear you are not speaking from a place of factual evidence based on recent incidents ie "fighting ICE agents or hitting them with a car").
The video in this example shows a citizen being held down and executed by ICE agents. The video also shows he was disarmed before the first shot was fired. Multiple angles are available for review. I am unwilling to argue facts.
Thank you for this. As far as I understand it, the victim was filming the ICE agent(s). I'm sure you'll agree that counts as resisting arrest and even putting the agent(s) lives at risk.
I do not believe this, and I don't think I said I did. Rather, I'm attempting to curiously understand OPs viewpoint, as I don't think it's intellectually honest. (For context, original OP said that the victim was 'resisting arrest')
Well, not to be completely dismissive here... It's clearly a prototype project to try and make quadratic probing a thing.
I'm not convinced this methology is better than linear probing (which then can be optimized easily into RobinHood hashes).
The only line I see about linear hashes is:
> Linear jumps (h, h+16, h+32...) caused 42% insert failure rate due to probe sequence overlap. Quadratic jumps spread groups across the table, ensuring all slots are reachable.
Which just seems entirely erroneous to me. How can linear probing fail? Just keep jumping until you find an open spot. As long as there is at least one open spot, you'll find it in O(n) time because you're just scanning the whole table.
Linear probing has a clustering problem. But IIRC modern CPUs have these things called L1 Cache/locality, meaning scanning all those clusters is stupidly fast in practice.
Linear probing could get pretty nasty corner cases in a concurrent system. Particularly one where the table is “warmed up” at start so that 80% of the eventual size shows up in the first minute of use. If that table is big enough then pressure to increase the load factor will be high, leading to more probing.
If you have ten threads all probing at the same time then you could get priority inversion and have the first writer take the longest to insert. If they hit more than a couple collisions then writers who would collide with them end up taking their slots before they can scan them.
> Anywhere near the coast of China, a warship is within range of truck-mounted anti-ship missiles.[2] Lots of them.
Yes, which is why the DDG(X) class has loads of stealth built in, to make it harder for those missiles to lock on.
One of the most important tools for fighting missiles is... an aircraft carrier. Early warning air systems (E2 Hawkeye), interceptors (F35), mostly for blowing up scouting craft.
Missiles can only home into what they can detect and see. Blowbup their eyes (RADAR systems) and they are flying blind. It's a lot of ocean out there and the horizon is surprisingly short.
Flight is your best way to cover a lot of ocean and find an enemy, but anything flying should be taken out by an F35.
--------
I'm not so against a rail gun or any of these future weapons per se. IIRC Japan has deployed a rail gun and they are an ally, with the right R&D team / licensing we might be able to get a working design.
But you know, that depends on how well Japans Railgun works. Ditto with laser systems and whatnot: as long as we test the crap out of them it's fine to deploy.
> The sinking of the Moskva was the first demonstration of this, and Ukraine has since taken out about eight more Russian warships and many smaller craft, using various missiles and drones.
Moskva is barely comparable to a singular US Destroyer, let alone a cruiser or larger boat.
And USA deploys large teams of Destroyers to help watch each other (and protect the carrier at the core of their fleet).
I'd expect that a drone being launched at a US Carrier strike group would simply be gunned down by the machine guns of an F35, long before they get close to the fleet.
-----
The sinking of the Moskva is also a Russian error. We all know that the Moskva's RADAR system could see the drones. The sad truth is that the Moskva's sailors were themselves unready to watch a RADAR screen for hours, days, months. They likely got fatigue and sounded the alarm too late vs the aerial threat.
Or maybe command was not notified quickly enough. Who knows? Communication error? There's a whole slew of chain of command issues that could have happened.
But we all know that the Moskva has good enough RADAR to see all of those drones. Even in the storm they were in. So it's most likely some kind of human error along the way.
USA, and other NATO forces, have anti-fatigue measures (better software, better training). Furthermore, we run missions vs Houthis and gain battle experience, or also shoot down Iranian missiles on their way to Israel. These missions (exercises??) will keep our sailors in better shape than the awful training the Russians have.
The current US government is reversing literally everything like a small child out of spite. That doesn't mean HN mods are "grifters" who are "in bed" with them
> but I'm not even sure it's that much more friendly than previous gov
Do you take this line back, or did you simply forget you said this? Or is there some fine detail you wish to clarify here.
Because one admin literally suing for the breakup of Google, and the next admin giving the case up with no argument is about as opposite as you can get. The facts simply do not match your assertions
Should I assume that breaking up google is bad for YC? And not breaking up google is good for YC? Why? Like having Google around would increase business opportunities for YC funded startups? And therefore HN mods are grifters in bed with trump? Sorry my friend but this is simply an insane
And even if breaking up google actually hurts YC, if one admin is reversing literally everything from the other admin out of princple and this accidentally does some good for you it doesn't mean it's friendly to you.
Sometimes I can't tell here who's more crazy US righties or US lefties...
Just say that the Trump admin is friendlier to Google. Can you do that for me?
Or are you unable to even do that?
> How is that even relevant
If it's not relevant, you should be able to admit it yourself without any issue. So take the statement 'This admin is friendlier to Google than Biden admin was', and make sure your statements are logically consistent with said statement.
That's all I'm asking you to do.
> Sometimes I can't tell here who's more crazy US righties or US lefties...
Don't making this a left or right thing. I'm just seeing if you can admit to the differences between 2024 and 2025 with respect to Google and the antitrust case. It's not like the fine issues of antitrust cases are an issue that the left or right really rallies behind.
I want to say Trump seems a bit friendlier to corporate. But the pro corporate guy would not take from corporate their best cheapest workforce. Maybe his friendly tax policy compensates for his strict immigration policy idk
Larry Ellison literally is stepping into Paramount and providing guarantees for $40,000,000,000+ to try and push Paramount + WB Merger. Literally Larry Ellison.
Are you unaware of any of the tech CEOs who are involved in any of the stuff I was discussing?
Because under a Democrat Government, TikTok was getting banned.
Under Trump, he kept it long enough for TikTok to be bought by Republican-allies.
This is just stuff from last year. Have you paid attention to any of the companies I've brought up at all? Are you unaware of all the massive $Million++ dinners that every tech-bron attended for Trump? Do you know the connections of JD Vance to Ellison and other tech bros?
Have you watched cryptocoins suddenly surge into mainstream with the Trump presidency as Trump literally pardoned those criminals?
What part of this administration is not pardoning cyber criminals or tech bros or otherwise sending money to them?
While I agree with you, I find that sometimes the “experience” can improve.
The most common “artifact” of AV1 is to make things slightly more blurry for example. A common H.265 artifact is “blockiness”. I have re-encoded H.265 to AV1 and not only gotten smaller files that playback better on low-end hardware but also display less blockiness while still looking high-resolution and great colour overall.
I always encode 10 bit colour and fast-decode for re-encoding to AV1, even if coming from an 8 bit original.
But then you look at flashback scenes and wonder where the noise has gone.
A lot of movies have purposeful noise, blurriness, snow, and fake artifacts to represent flashback scenes. One level of compression often keeps them okay-ish (like you can tell side by side that it's different, but only when you know what to look for). But these are the scenes that get especially ruined by two layers of compression.
50GB gives assurances that the BluRays are high quality (but not always. I've seen some horrible BluRay encodings...)
As long as you are going from high quality sources, you should be fine. The issue is each transcoding step is a glorified loop-(find something we think humans can't see and delete it)
In other words: the AV1 encoder in your example works by finding 47GBs of data TO DELETE. It's simply gone, vanished. That's how lossy compression works, delete the right things and save space.
In my experience, this often deletes purposeful noise out of animation (there are often static noise / VHS like effects in animation and film to represent flashbacks, these lossy decoders think it's actually noise and just deleted it all changing the feel of some scenes).
--------
More importantly: what is your plan with the 50GB BluRays? When AV2 (or any other future codec) comes out, you'll want to work off the 50GB originals and not off the 3GB AV1 compressed copies.
IMO, just work with the 50GB originals. Back them up, play them as is.
I guess AV1 compression is useful if you have a limited bandwidth (do you stream them out of your basement, across the internet and to your phone or something? I guess AV1 is good for that) But for most people just working with the 50GB originals is the best plan
> In other words: the AV1 encoder in your example works by finding 47GBs of data TO DELETE.
With that reasoning, lossless compression of .wav to .flac destroys >50% of data.
In actuality, you can reconstruct much of the source even with lossy compression. Hell, 320kbps mp3 (and equivalent aac, opus, etc) are indistinguishable from lossless and thus aurally transparant to humans, meaning as far as concerns us, there is no data loss.
Maybe one day we'll get to the point where video compression is powerful enough that we get transparent lossy compression at the bit rates streaming services are offering us.
> In my experience, this often deletes purposeful noise out of animation
AV1 specifically analyzes the original noise, denoises the source then adds back the noise as a synthetic mask / overlay of sorts. Noise is death for compression so this allows large gains in compression ratio.
> AV1 specifically analyzes the original noise, denoises the source then adds back the noise as a synthetic mask / overlay of sorts. Noise is death for compression so this allows large gains in compression ratio.
If said noise still exists after H265.
And there's no guarantee that these noise detection algorithms are compatible with H264, H265, AV1, or future codecs H266 or AV2.
AV1 is not about throwing away more data that the human can’t see. It’s about having better tools.
1. the prediction tools of AV1 are better than those of h265. Better angular prediction, better neighboring pixels filtering, an entirely new chroma from luma prediction tool, an intra-block copying tool, more inter prediction tools, non-square coding units.
2. If the prediction is better, the residuals will be smaller.
3. Those residuals are converted to frequency domain with better tools for AV1 as well (more options than just DCT), so that you have a better grouping of coefficients close to the DC component. (Less zeros interleaving non-zero values.)
4. Those coefficients compress better, with a better entropy coding algorithm too.
You can have exactly the same video quality for h265 and AV1 yet still have a lower bitrate for the latter and with no additional decision made to “find out what humans can’t see.” The only place in the process where you decide to throw away stuff that humans can’t see is in the quantization of the frequency transformed residuals (between step 3 and 4) and the denoising before optional film grain synthesis.
To be clear: you can of course only go down or stay equal in quality when you transcode, due to rounding errors, incompatible prediction modes etc. That’s not under discussion. I’m only arguing about the claim that AV1 is better in general because you throw away more data. That’s just not true.
Yes, in general you find the best high quality source you can get your hands on and then compress that. For us lay people, that would currently be any 4k videos with a high bitrate. In such cases, it doesn't matter much that it is already compressed with AVC or HEVC. Sure, when you compress that again at a lower bitrate, there will some loss of data or quality. But honestly, it doesn't make a discernable difference (after all, you decide what is the video quality acceptable to you by choosing how much more to compress). Ideally, if DVD and Blu-Rays lasted long, we would all just be saving our videos on it. (Assuming there will be any Blu-Ray readers, 10+ years down the lane).
Yes. Deleting data does wonders for the filesize. The question I'm bringing up is one of quality.
If you must delete, delete starting from the 50GB+ original BluRays if at all possible, or some other very high quality source. That way the compression algorithm has the best chance of saving the important scene data.
And keep an eye on the known hard to encode scenes. A lot of the typical shots of a movie are handled well on one set of settings, but suddenly screw up on other scenes (or other animation styles. Anime vs Cartoons vs 3D vs Live Action can have subtle differences leading to quality issues).
It's not easy, and AV1 is our best bet at doing this well so far. But when the future algorithms come out, you need to start over from the best sources of you want AV2 to have a chance.
You should *Never* double compress. (Blu-ray -> H265 -> AV1). This is horrible for the quality. You'll get better results from BluRay -> AV1 by a large margin.
I continuously get Spanish advertisements despite being unable to speak Spanish. (The only foreign language media I visit on YouTube is Anime/Japanese and Germans stuff).
There are surely large numbers of dumb cases of being mispredicted out there in.
On a foreign language scale, Bluey and Peppa Pig are around B1- or A2+.
Or in other words: a typical adult needs about one year of self study (or nearly 6 months of more focused intensive study) before they can fully understand a show like Bluey or Peppa Pig.
And maybe half that for substantial understanding. (3 months intensive, 6 months typical self study to reach A2+ / watch Bluey with substantial understanding but not complete understanding).
If I were to guess at Mickey Mouse clubhouse, it's damn near A1 or A0+, it's so repetive and slow that you can learn some words from it.
Yeah, that's a lot more boring than the 'advanced' shows like Bluey or Peppa Pig.
Also note that children are not aware of tools (ie hammers or screwdrivers) yet. So simple learning exercises to know that hammer hammers nail but not screws is the kind of thing needed at pre-school level.
I'd imagine that the appropriate age for Mickey Mouse clubhouse is under 3. Bluey/Peppa Pig are closer to 6 or 7+ year old material.
Or in foreign language levels: B1-ish / 2+ on the American scale.
------
Seriously. Just switch the shows to a different language and the level gap becomes blatantly clear.
In perhaps more Techie terms: Mickey Mouse Clubhouse level of understanding is achievable with Duolingo. Peppa Pig / Bluey (and similar level shows) are so far beyond Duolingo that I bet most Duolingo users will NEVER be able to achieve Bluey-level understanding in a foreign language (and that deep textbook + 1000ish vocab study memorization needs to be done before Bluey can be understood).
------
Maybe the vocab estimate is easiest to understand. Bluey feels like a show that uses 1000 words with mastery (and maybe 2000 hard words as learning exercises in the show).
Mickey Mouse clubhouse uses maybe 250 words with mastery and maybe uses the top1000 list as learning/teaching words.
How (and why??) does Mickey Mouse clubhouse make an ENTIRE song consisting of a single word? (hotdog?) Because it's written for people where 'Hot dog' is a difficult word and needs repetition.
reply