Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This isn’t going to stop until we get the madman out of office, and have new leadership in place. We all know it. Beats me why any Republican would stand in support of this.
Because all they care about is staying in office.
Also MAGA threatens their families if they cross Trump.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Pretti allegedly had an Sig P320 - a gun that has a horrible safety issue of letting off shots without a trigger press. It’s a known issue. I wonder if in the process of disarming him a shot from his gun went off and the panic started and shots were directed at him. Not excusing but trying to make sense.
That is exactly what happened. But the left (who knows nothing about guns) wont accept it.
So you're saying that ICE are such f--kups that if a car backfires nearby, or someone drops a mug of coffee on concrete, they'll empty a couple of rounds into someone?
Why are they allowed to carry guns again?
Did a car back fire? Did a coffee cup break? Or did an Sig 9 mm go off? Details matter, sweetie.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
He was interfering with ice activities. That is against the law.
He engaged an officer when the officers was engaged with another individual. (On video)
That’s against the law.
He resisted arrest. (On video)
That’s against the law.
You seem to believe that protesting is the same as interfering.
It isn't.
We have a Constitutional right to protest, including to protest police activities.
It's not against the law to "engage an officer while the officer is engaged with another person". WTF? That's not illegal.
Resisting arrest is illegal, but a) he wasn't doing that. it's not on the video. They were beating and attacking him violently. He was trying to protect himself and b) resisting arrest is not grounds for public exectution.
So stop. Stop lying. You sound hysterical. You sound like an anti-American loser.
Why won't you respect the Constitution? Have some decency.
Could you please show the copy of the permit for that protest?
What!?
Wrong country, dude. Americans don’t need a permit to protest. It’s protected constitutional speech.
If your protests blocks the traffic, permits generally required. The guy was not on a sidewalk, he was in the middle of the road. That is why I asked if he obtained a permit for protesting.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Pretti allegedly had an Sig P320 - a gun that has a horrible safety issue of letting off shots without a trigger press. It’s a known issue. I wonder if in the process of disarming him a shot from his gun went off and the panic started and shots were directed at him. Not excusing but trying to make sense.
That is exactly what happened. But the left (who knows nothing about guns) wont accept it.
So you're saying that ICE are such f--kups that if a car backfires nearby, or someone drops a mug of coffee on concrete, they'll empty a couple of rounds into someone?
Why are they allowed to carry guns again?
Did a car back fire? Did a coffee cup break? Or did a Sig 9 mm go off? Details matter, sweetie.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
He was interfering with ice activities. That is against the law.
He engaged an officer when the officers was engaged with another individual. (On video)
That’s against the law.
He resisted arrest. (On video)
That’s against the law.
You seem to believe that protesting is the same as interfering.
It isn't.
We have a Constitutional right to protest, including to protest police activities.
It's not against the law to "engage an officer while the officer is engaged with another person". WTF? That's not illegal.
Resisting arrest is illegal, but a) he wasn't doing that. it's not on the video. They were beating and attacking him violently. He was trying to protect himself and b) resisting arrest is not grounds for public exectution.
So stop. Stop lying. You sound hysterical. You sound like an anti-American loser.
Why won't you respect the Constitution? Have some decency.
Could you please show the copy of the permit for that protest?
What!?
Wrong country, dude. Americans don’t need a permit to protest. It’s protected constitutional speech.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
He was interfering with ice activities. That is against the law.
He engaged an officer when the officers was engaged with another individual. (On video)
That’s against the law.
He resisted arrest. (On video)
That’s against the law.
You seem to believe that protesting is the same as interfering.
It isn't.
We have a Constitutional right to protest, including to protest police activities.
It's not against the law to "engage an officer while the officer is engaged with another person". WTF? That's not illegal.
Resisting arrest is illegal, but a) he wasn't doing that. it's not on the video. They were beating and attacking him violently. He was trying to protect himself and b) resisting arrest is not grounds for public exectution.
So stop. Stop lying. You sound hysterical. You sound like an anti-American loser.
Why won't you respect the Constitution? Have some decency.
Could you please show the copy of the permit for that protest?
What!?
Wrong country, dude. Americans don’t need a permit to protest. It’s protected constitutional speech.
If your protests blocks the traffic, permits generally required. The guy was not on a sidewalk, he was in the middle of the road. That is why I asked if he obtained a permit for protesting.
It's not that kind of protest. You are thinking of the ones that are organized in advance, where people march from point A to point B. Those require permits.
Protesting something in the moment is different.
And sure, if he is jaywalking, that's technically illegal, and the city cops could write him a ticket. Is that what you are arguing?
Okay, so even if he jaywalked, and even if he should have had a permit but didn't, does that merit being killed?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
He was interfering with ice activities. That is against the law.
He engaged an officer when the officers was engaged with another individual. (On video)
That’s against the law.
He resisted arrest. (On video)
That’s against the law.
You seem to believe that protesting is the same as interfering.
It isn't.
We have a Constitutional right to protest, including to protest police activities.
It's not against the law to "engage an officer while the officer is engaged with another person". WTF? That's not illegal.
Resisting arrest is illegal, but a) he wasn't doing that. it's not on the video. They were beating and attacking him violently. He was trying to protect himself and b) resisting arrest is not grounds for public exectution.
So stop. Stop lying. You sound hysterical. You sound like an anti-American loser.
Why won't you respect the Constitution? Have some decency.
Could you please show the copy of the permit for that protest?
What!?
Wrong country, dude. Americans don’t need a permit to protest. It’s protected constitutional speech.
If your protests blocks the traffic, permits generally required. The guy was not on a sidewalk, he was in the middle of the road. That is why I asked if he obtained a permit for protesting.
It's not that kind of protest. You are thinking of the ones that are organized in advance, where people march from point A to point B. Those require permits.
Protesting something in the moment is different.
And sure, if he is jaywalking, that's technically illegal, and the city cops could write him a ticket. Is that what you are arguing?
Anonymous wrote:This isn’t going to stop until we get the madman out of office, and have new leadership in place. We all know it. Beats me why any Republican would stand in support of this.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Pretti allegedly had an Sig P320 - a gun that has a horrible safety issue of letting off shots without a trigger press. It’s a known issue. I wonder if in the process of disarming him a shot from his gun went off and the panic started and shots were directed at him. Not excusing but trying to make sense.
That is exactly what happened. But the left (who knows nothing about guns) wont accept it.
So you're saying that ICE are such f--kups that if a car backfires nearby, or someone drops a mug of coffee on concrete, they'll empty a couple of rounds into someone?
Why are they allowed to carry guns again?
Did a car back fire? Did a coffee cup break? Or did an Sig 9 mm go off? Details matter, sweetie.
Wouldn’t there be a loose bullet or the shell around the scene to prove this theory?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Pretti allegedly had an Sig P320 - a gun that has a horrible safety issue of letting off shots without a trigger press. It’s a known issue. I wonder if in the process of disarming him a shot from his gun went off and the panic started and shots were directed at him. Not excusing but trying to make sense.
That is exactly what happened. But the left (who knows nothing about guns) wont accept it.
So you're saying that ICE are such f--kups that if a car backfires nearby, or someone drops a mug of coffee on concrete, they'll empty a couple of rounds into someone?
Why are they allowed to carry guns again?
Did a car back fire? Did a coffee cup break? Or did an Sig 9 mm go off? Details matter, sweetie.
Anonymous wrote:
These sources all believe this is going to end up being what they call a “bad shoot”, a “shitty” situation that happened in seconds where agents likely heard “gun!”, then the disarmed firearm may have had an accidental discharge that spooked the agents, and they shot. The agents do not have the luxury of multiple slow motion angles - and had to make split second decisions.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
He definitely resisted. There was a lot of wrestling going on for there to be no resisting.