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.
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.