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.
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.