A few weeks ago: "regime change is bad" was updated to "regime change is good". This was a great success, so now new updates are being released.
Now, there is a new update: "must not be infringed" now means "if you're carrying a concealed gun at a protest, you are a domestic terrorist and will be summarily executed after being disarmed and restrained."
Please prepare for your next update, due to be released in a couple of months. In "We oppose Middle Eastern quagmires", strike the word 'oppose' and insert 'support'.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and remember to keep trusting the plan.
I think Pretti was a bad shoot.
I also think there is no reality in which a law enforcement agency engages in tens of thousands of tense interactions with deliberately provocative protestors over the course of several weeks and no one gets shot.
So where does fault lie?
With the democrat politicians who first flooded the country with illegal aliens and then organized and inflamed their voters into open rebellion against border/immigration enforcement. Democrats knew the math. They wanted bodies.
Agreed wholeheartedly. But instead of being upfront and honest about that reality, many are trying to frame it as the shooting was justified because he had a gun. I think that needs to be nipped in the bud whenever possible.
Another consideration is the unfortunate reality that the American people are probably too stupid to understand the nuanced reality, so from a PR standpoint digging in one's heels and pretending there was no wrongdoing may have been the correct move.
Sticky situation overall. When the initial backlash has died down I think there should be an investigation and if they want to claim the officer thought the guy reached for the gun, that's one thing, but I don't think it's good for them to maintain it's justified because he had a gun.
Also it is hard to shake the feeling that everytbing is being handled this way to achieve a poor results to backlash ratio so that they lose the midterms without making all that much ground on deportations.
Yea two things can be true. There are issues with this shooting and you shouldn’t be interfering with ICE or blocking the vehicles. Some blame definitely needs to go to the ones who have brainwashed these people to think enforcing immigration law is evil. I’m personally tired of them as much as I got sick of blm morons
But at the same time, anyone protesting Covid restrictions needs their kids taken away by the government...
They do not respect the rule of law, so the don't deserve it's protection.
You make sense my friend.
The other consideration on top of that is the morale of the ICE officers and of law enforcement in general. You're never going to get mass deportations and border enforcement on the scale you want if the administration is seen to throw ICE officers under the bus, even if one of them might deserve it. That rips the rug out from under them, and it will make them more hesitant to do their job.
This is far from an ideal situation, but just as with the other scenario that the OP is still fuming about, the side that clings to ideals in the face of an enemy cynically engaged in the realpolitik of win-at-any-cost will inevitably lose.
This needs to be hammered into people's heads. Saw so many "conservatives" joining in the frenzy bleating about muh principles. Even if I can agree with specific gun rights angles, anyone joining in the frenzy amplifying anti-ICE sentiment right now without attaching the appropriate qualifiers is undoubtedly pushing in the wrong direction and is an enemy at the moment.
FWIW, I'm not criticizing ICE (this wasn't even ICE). I'm criticizing these guys and administration officials.
But here's the deal. What do you think will make ICE more hated? If people think they can be killed by ICE with impunity, or if they think there is some rule and procedure to use of force? Did the previous "ICE killing", more justified than this one, increase or decrease opposition to ICE?
Opposing accountability comes back to bite people. But it's OK if you want to claim I'm the enemy.
I agree, and that is why I am going back and forth with another user about accountability in this thread. Public perception is important so long as we are subject to the wills of any room temperature IQ normie capable of dragging themselves to the polls to vote.
The problem is when people get frenzied and frothing at the mouth over it and don't attach the appropriate qualifiers. I saw plenty of conservatives yesterday retweeting and amplifying known terrible people who have 90% the wrong message just because they agreed with the one part where they said they don't like this shooting. People need to keep their heads on straight and be pragmatic.
Are there that many conservatives who don't agree with this shooting? If so, I'm impressed, leaving aside the strategic issue of whether it is wise to amplify posts with 90% wrong messages.
I have seen some but I have also seen plenty of them who are in favor of it and exacerbating any public relations L taken from the incident. I can't say I follow enough of them, or consooom enough social media to accurately say how prevalent each group is. But I did see a fair amount of both.
Well said. Nuanced discussion is impossible unless everyone involved is reasonably intelligent, shares some common values, and is willing to act in good faith. None of those things are remotely true in American politics.
To the extent nuance is used at all in our politics, it's to muddy the waters on issues that should be clear cut.
I think people struggle to put into words the sentiment that the shooting was not justified in retrospect, but it was a very understandable mistake. The guy didn't just have a gun, his gun discharged in the middle of a melee of other officers, outside of the line of sight of the guy who started shooting. You have the situation where something walked like a duck and quacked like a duck, but turned out not to be a duck because Sig made a deathtrap of a pistol. A "duck" in this case being a guy shooting at your coworkers point blank.
It's like the difference between a guy swerving to avoid a dog in the road and totalling an oncoming car with fatalities, and the same situation with no dog just a guy too wasted to drive straight. Technically both of them fucked up, but one of them just had an understandable moment of panic, the other just showed a blatant disregard for his responsibilities as a good citizen. And people intuitively know the panic guy isn't nearly so bad as the blatantly negligent guy and don't want the same level of punitive punishment for the same outcome, even if they can't quite enunciate that logic. So when people are saying he's a cold-blooded, premeditated murderer they just say "no he's not" without being able to expand on it properly.
Very well said and I think that explanation applies to the vast majority of people. Personally I think politicians and those in positions of authority should be held to a bit of higher standard in terms of articulation ability, but then it circles back to my point of Americans being too stupid to understand it anyway. Just a mess all around.
It's not just "he had a gun." It's also where and when he "had a gun." "Had a gun" is a funny kind of re-framing of "Armed himself before wading into a conflict."
Those are very different things.
I think having a gun in such a situation is and should be protected by the Constitution though. Don't get me wrong, I'm not losing sleep over it. He was almost undoubtedly a terrible person. But the administration needs to get its messaging right.
It is protected. Just because it is protected, doesn't make it not a bad idea, and the fact that it is protected doesn't mean you're not a piece of shit for exercising that right in bad faith. It's for self-defense. This doesn't cover aggression. If you're armed for aggression, it's not self-defense.
I don't think this concept has any legal merit though. And if it does, I really don't think I want the government to be the arbiter of that. Barring him not carrying ID (which incurs just a small fine), he was legally carrying.
Yes, yes. We're not talking legally. I already said his right in protected. I already said he was within his legal rights. This does not stop him from being in the wrong for arming himself with the intent or possibility of aggressing.
Legality is not a magic shield that makes you right. Exercising your Rights does not make you not a piece of shit, depending on how you're choosing to go about it. The entire concept of Rights, when it comes to the legality, rests on a somewhat fragile assumption of reasonable behavior. If you choose to do retarded things or go out looking to do harm, you are very well within your legal right to do so. You're also a piece of shit and might have to be put down.
I do agree he is morally in the wrong. I don't think many here would question that. Just insomuch as video evidence seems to show he was not legally in the wrong, there probably needs to be some form of accountability for it even if it is something that is just for show like removing that officer from a public-interfacing position.
In an ideal world, him being morally in the wrong would be the end of it. But we live in a society of laws, and one subjected to the will of any room temperature IQ normie capable of dragging themselves to the polls at that, so that needs to be taken into account. We do not have the political capital to have incidents like these and then handle them poorly on the PR front. I live in a state that voted for Trump by like 10 points and I would be shocked if >50% of my normie coworkers support ICE.
It's not an unexpected reaction when zogbots hear an unexpected gunshot when disarming someone. Pretti would still be alive if he hadn't been carrying Sigslop. It was pointed out in a thread yesterday that you can see in the video that the trigger on his P320 wasn't touched, apparently it was snatched away violently enough to jostle the sear loose.
Chalk off yet another victim of Sig
Somehow I'd missed this, and that just makes it even funnier. He brought an eighty dollar gangbanger special to try and harass the feds, and it went off in someone else's hands?
Actually, it was an expensive rig with an expensive optic. Probably upwards of $1500.
It's even better than that. It's not a gangbanger special, it's the expensive version of a gun with known issues. He probably showed up at the gun store without doing any research and the salesman took the chance to unload some unsellable inventory on the fool at full price.
Hilarious.
Republicans aren't blameless in this regard. They've done plenty to ensure things reached this point and we'd do well to reserve some ire for them as well.
It's being mishandled this way on purpose by bad actors so that they DON'T go after the money and hit the bigger targets and wasting their time with this.
Well the signal chat leak shows that democrat politicians are actively organizing these rioters
They are not.
Everyone is a hypocrite the people who tell you the Good shooting wasn't justified for whatever reason, will defend the Ashley Babbitt killing. None of this shit is genuine or grassroots. It's all bullshit. And to be honest, I'm kinda glad some right wingers are performing more enemy/friend distinction, like the left, instead of losing on principle.
I have questions about the Good shooting. I think it's probably legal under US law, but I think he shouldn't have shot her. I also (obviously) oppose the Ashli Babbitt shooting.
The flaw in this argument is that you assume that killing people is 'winning'. Killing Babbitt did the left absolutely no good and galvanized the right for years. And here, creating a backlash and damaging the reputation of ICE and mass deportations is anything but winning.
Like Talleyrand said: it's worse than a crime, it's a blunder.
I did, when did I assume that?
It did, when?
This is after all the media coverage of kids in cages and constant use of the term family separation to demonize immigration, correct?
You cited the friend/enemy-distinction. It suggested that you think that this is doing the side that shoots another dead any actual good.
The fact that we all mention her. The fact that rightists claim that 'they want us all dead' - which is now something echoed on the left. This sort of thing turns a political dispute into something existential. That's not where you want your opponents to be. You want them to submit peacefully and quietly. You may argue that they were already not doing that, but it's gotten considerably worse with the shootings.
Absolutely. Just look at the polls. Just look at the reaction of people to ICE.
Fact is, this sort of thing made deportation from a very popular thing to something that is very controversial. ICE was very popular. Now abolish ICE is getting boosts.
Just say you’re a retard with no argument if you believe polls are real.
So they were real when they showed massive support for ICE and not real now.
This is more shitlib conjecture from you. Retarded leftists have been engaged in an actual insurrection, the only thing that has been infringed is the rights of the non-protestors because Trump is too much of a pussy to actually put his foot down, invoke the insurrection act and do what is needed to be done. Historically, soldiers wouldn’t have batted an eye flat out shooting the armed retard in the first place for forcing a safeguard, their biggest mistake, like with Floyd, was actually attempting to wrestle him down in the first place.
He's not wrong. I've heard the sentiment floating around this week of "you're not intending to peacefully protest if you bring a gun with you to the protest". As if carrying a concealed weapon is intent to maliciously wield it rather than a precautionary measure of self defense. That idea is out there in the wild right now.
The problem lies with him being a part of an organization intending to carry out violence and disruption. People aren't articulating why it's a problem for this dude and his cohorts to have a gun at a "protest."
Apparently, being part of an organization intending to carry out violence against LEOs isn't a problem because they aren't being arrested en mass. These people are keeping a more detailed hit list of ICE agents than the FBI has on them.
If they'd taken him at his home, in the middle of the night, he might be alive now.
I personally think Minnesota needs to be put under marital law. If I were in charge Walz would be awaiting trial for sedition and insurrection
The idea you can utilize self defense in the act of committing a crime is even more wild. People have bent over for leftist despotism so long they forgot the purpose of guns.
There is nothing wrong with showing up to a protest and waving your dumb signs around and chanting slogans while also having a glock in your waistband holster that you go everywhere with every day as a normally as making sure you have your keys before you leave the house. That is not the same thing as deciding that a protest provides ample cover and soft targets and therefor deciding to bring a weapon to score some easy kills. There seems to be a lot of conflation of these two scenarios going on right now and it is dishonest.
Does this mook deserve to get popped? Yes, but not because he had his every day carry on him. He deserves to get popped because he was fighting with law enforcement and because he's a traitor to the nation. The gun in his back pocket doesn't even enter into the equation.
I wish they would get at least half as angry about leftist “protesters” as they did about J6
With how successful the NPC update was, I'm also really worried about "Internet anonymity is bad, and must be ended."
That one has been a concern for years. I don't think there will be nearly enough resistance once governments start pushing for that in earnest. Facebook broke the taboo and now everyone posts on Twitter and Instagram with their real faces like it's nothing. Clout chasing platforms did a lot to destroy the public's desire for privacy.
Before the advent of social media extroverts were the lubricant that kept society running smoothly. Post social media they're the fuel that is burning it down because they're like alcoholics with a death grip on that bottle of hooch. Obviously the blatantly manipulative social media incentives are the root of that evil, but I can't help but be a little disappointed in so many people's desperate lack of self-control too.
He was a not a domestic terrorist for having a gun at a protest. He was a terrorist who had a gun while instigating a confrontation with federal police and intentionally obstructing official acts. It's not a 2A issue and you have to he a retard to think it is.
I agree but there has undeniably been messaging from the feds implying the gun itself was the problem without painting the picture of the greater context.
yes, the feds who are bringing 2A themes into this are also very retarded.
Not that this is just a left-wing thing, but isn't it just wild watching liberals go from being the "peace party" to tyrannical warmongers? The modern left has more in common with Lindsay Graham than Bill Clinton and that's fucking mind blowing to me.
Propaganda is a hell of a drug.
Yes, and it's not even that Bill Clinton was much to write home about either. Ultimately, it's "my team, right or wrong".
Remember guys, AoV is so so sad about the communist who died.
Not one word for Cannon Hinnant though, oh no no no.
Who chose to interject himself into the situation. Similar to how Floyd chose to use a counterfeit bill and ignore the cop’s instruction.
And SWALLOW HIS ENTIRE STASH.
Yep. The people in the car with him told him to do what the cops said.
Here's the funniest part for me.
They taught us to use that hold in the service. I've done it, and had it done to me because they used all the trainees as test dummies.
It hurts but it doesn't kill you. It's useful for restraining people who are cracked out, like ISIS. Their soldiers, and consequently their campaign, were fueled by meth.
Yep
It was only half though. He spat out a ball of heroin & fentanyl in the back seat while begging to lay on the ground. If he'd have swallowed that too he'd have been dead in minutes, with zero doubt the drugs killed him.
Even with 3x a LD50 dose in him the leftists claimed he was chocked to death (or some tommyrot).
He was also saying "I can't breathe" while sitting in the drivers seat, long before they took him out. Why was he in the drivers seat of the dug dealer's car? With 2 wads of drugs in his mouth? Because he was their lamb to be slaughtered so they'd get off Scott free, which is exactly what happened.
Why lie?
Lmao reddit. Why would I bother looking there?
So you lie and claim that I said nothing about Cannon Hinnant, and then whine that it was Reddit, even though you yourself posted on Reddit at the time?
Go ahead and link me to a post or comment made here about it. Then I'll say I was mistaken. But if you expect me or anyone to bother with reddit, you are wrong.
Here's what you said:
You lied.
I did not, and you're desperately deflecting.
I'm not the one who deflected to a case of 6 years ago and lied that the other guy hadn't said anything about it. That was you. And you're not even man enough to admit it.
Keep you're retarded opinions in the UK. Unlike yall we actually view people fighting to bring in illegals as the traitors they are.
At this point I don't even care that it was a morally bad shooting. Yall are more concerned about that than the fact that the faggot was out in the street trying to fight law enforcement on behalf of foreign nationals in the first place or the organized gangs attacking Immigration enforcement across multiple sanctuary cities
It's not even a morally bad shooting. Dude instigated conflict, he had a gun, he resisted, and he was shot. High level view, nothing immoral.
Only thing that would make this morally bad is if we thought the officer purposely shot him out of malice. I don't see any evidence of that at all.
I think there's moral culpability in being so incompetent that six agents can't subdue one retard
Clearly you want them to be in the wrong for some reason, but there isn't actually any good reason to think that.
They should have done this, should have done that, should be perfect all the time. Like no, the dude is at fault. He brought the conflict, he resisted, he had a gun, he died.
Sans malice, there's nothing unreasonable about what happened.
Are you retarded? I'm not looking for them to be wrong. It's no different than women not being fit for field work as police officers. If you cannot do the job then you shouldnt take it. You seem to be struggling to grasp that it's not the shooting I have a problem with but the inability to do the basics of their job
Their job isn't to detain people like that guy. They're not state police that can arrest people for a litany of charges, they can only arrest for federal crimes.
Amateur response. I view people bringing in LEGAL immigrants as traitors.
At least you admit that. Props for the honesty.
We can agree on that
I'm never shy about my opinions. I cannot look at the history of Marxist revolutions and feel sympathy for the foot soldiers. The shooting is legally sound because it appears the sig suicide misfired and the officers reasonably thought the armed retard fired his gun but they should have never let it get to that point. 6 men should be enough to control some skinny fat nurse
Incredibly insincere take that deliberately leaves out the biggest parties at fault for creating this situation.
I didn’t get the updates but thanks anyway I guess. I’m a 2A supporter. Find it funny that the left is all about supporting it now. The Pretti shooting isn’t as clean cut and those officers will most likely be disciplined but honestly it’s hard to feel sympathy for protesters who choose to interfere. They are in the same category as worthless blm protesters. They have been brainwashed to believe that enforcing immigration is some great evil.
The best part about this is that it was only a couple of days before the shooting that Trump was praising illegals' work ethic and saying he isn't going to deport them, and Republicans passed a bill to let in even more people. What's even the point of all this then?
He reached for his holster after the first shot went off. What do you suppose he was trying to do when he fought 5 cops with a gun on him? It was a clusterfuck and the ICE agents look like a mess but if it took no effort to get shot by them then a lot lot more people would be dead.
Im not upset about these retards getting themselves shot but if you find it so bad maybe petition for ICE to carry tasers
Did you see that on any video, or is this claims by the feds? And this doesn't make much sense to me. Was it his gun that went off? Then he reached for an empty holster. Was it the cops' gun? Then they shot him before he did anything.
Think again, have you ever heard of blowback? Do you think this increases the possibilities for deportations and ICE? What good does this do at all?
Why would it ever get easier? The point of the agitation and following them around and getting in their faces and blowing whistles and getting shot as a martyr is to make it all harder
To be fair, I wouldn't blame him for reaching for his holster after a shot went off.
But the issue with many people is they look at this and everything else through the lens of "ICE are bad and are out to start trouble." People seem convinced ICE started this altercation for no reason other than looking at it through that lens. The videos we have are quite short and absolutely do not show the start of this guy's interactions with these officers. Which likely doesn't affect most people's assessments on whether or not it was a good shoot, but it 100% affects whether they choose to give a single shit about it or not.
This is a leftist retard take on "NPC update."
It is unjustifiable and retarded to go armed to a "peaceful protest" in which officers have been constantly and consistently forced to grapple "protestors" and leap out of the way of "protestors" attempting to "just observe, bro" when they decide they have the right to drive right through people.
Of course (in America) everyone has the Right to bear arms. However carrying into a brawl, a fracas, it is clear what you're up to. And he was. And we know it. You're the "NPC update" trying to say completely stupid things in a way that makes them sound normal.
This is very simple: Don't fight cops. Don't go to where cops are fighting and bring your piece. Your rights are not plot armor, you are not a main character. Don't waltz into places where tense, forceful exchanges are happening, antagonize, and expect the universe to be kind to you.
It was Americans who told me "shall not be infringed", that any gun law is unconstitutional. Now those same people are telling me that summary execution is correct if you attend a protest where some people are rioting, while armed.
What was he up to?
He was part of the soup, fighting cops, you complete and utter dingus. You know this, you just like to smarmily lie, because you're a chestless lefty faggot who likes to bloviate his Eurofag chestless lefty faggot opinions on United States dealings that he's completely ignorant regarding and are none of his chestless lefty Eurofag faggoty business.
Show me where he was "fighting cops". And even if he was, how does that justify summary execution when he's restrained and disarmed?
You claimed "carrying into a brawl, a fracas, it is clear what you're up to." And then couldn't answer what. I guess you're not shameless enough to echo the administration's lies about him being a domestic terrorist trying to kill as many as possible.
See? You don't have a non-disingenuous bone in your body. You lie like breathing.
Everything he did there was fighting cops. He was there to fight, he was fighting when they had to tell him to get down and put his hands up, he was fighting when they were attempting to disarm him. Fight fight fight.
It is not a "summary execution" and your attempt to frame it as such clearly demonstrates exactly what kind of chestless lefty Eurofag faggot you are. It was a fight, and he got killed while being disarmed. This kind of shit happens in fracases. Boo fucking hoo.
No dude, he got killed AFTER being disarmed. So yeah, a summary execution.
WHILE, you fucking fruitbat. This is not some magical toggle-switch that flips on a nanosecond. His gun was in play, and he was still feasibly, demonstrably, observably trying to go for his gun, or their guns. It was still a highly dangerous situation, and in the absence of perfect information, they were still engaged in a fight.
Which you know. But you like to lie.
He was "demonstrably" doing that, but you don't even know if he was going for his own gun or their gun? Sounds like it's not "demonstrable" at all.
You are stupid.