Too much ice

#9,460
#9,460
rekinhavoc said:
Must watch.
Click to expand...
Orange_Crush said:
Click to expand...

This one too. Again, this guy is an expert on self-defense and use of force.

Folks should probably start preparing themselves for this to be found a justified shooting (if this guy's summary of the law and standard is correct, if his analysis of the video is correct, and if they find a grand jury that will apply the law as stated).

Points he makes per the law:

1. (1:30) The standard for LEO is a "reasonable" belief that they are in imminent, unlawful danger, not a "correct" belief.
2. (1:40) The law gives LEO the benefit of the doubt (presumed reasonable belief) and wide leeway. A prosecutor would have to prove otherwise beyond "any reasonable doubt". It's a high burden that is the prosecutor's duty to overcome.
3. (2:00) Pretti inserted himself and made contact with the agent while the agent was engaged with someone else, which is a felony. Thus trying to arrest Pretti at that time was a legitimate LEO activity.
4. (2:20) Pretti was non-compliant, fighting them, resisting arrest, and a gun was found on him--thus escalating the situation.
5. (2:30) They hear a gunshot go off and Pretti's right hand comes from his waistline with something black in his hand.

2:45--"They are making all of these perceptions, all these decisions in a violent, chaotic melee, caused by Alex Pretti. They have to make all these decisions in a split second because that's how quick someone can use a weapon against you. And those decision, again, they don't have to be correct. The law of self-defense does not require us to make perfect decisions. It requires us to make reasoned decisions, meaning you are required to apply your reasons to the facts presented to you. You are not making things up. You are not 'speculating' that someone could have a weapon."


IMO, one question could be the first shot, if it occurred before anyone saw him withdrawing his hand from his waistband with 'something black' in it. A couple of questions there:

1. If the agents testify that someone(s) yelled "gun!" as training would dictate: Does that create reasonable belief in the agents' minds that he is armed and dangerous? i.e. Does this negate the accusation that the first LEO shooter was 'speculating' the possession of a gun?
2. If the initial shooter was in the wrong, how do you attribute which one it was, and which ones were firing out of a 'reasonable' belief that the armed man who was resisting arrest had just started firing? i.e. Who do you charge beyond a reasonable doubt?
 
#9,461
#9,461
BeardedVol said:
An 'appeal to authority' argument doesnt really work when the person you pick, isn't even an authority on the subject.
Click to expand...
Can you explain the criticism? I never appealed to an authority. I posted a video where someone made what I felt to be a compelling argument. You can either interact with the argument, or not. Doesn't bother me either way.

But at the end of the day, I posted a video with no comment whatsoever. I see you just can't break that habit of putting words in the mouths of others. Seems to be your one Fife-bullet. It's just that Barney was smart enough not to fire his.
 
  • Like
Reactions: appvol
#9,462
#9,462
rekinhavoc said:
www.breitbart.com

Thom Tillis: Kristi Noem Should Be 'Out of a Job' over Minneapolis

Thom Tillis called for the firing of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem for her messaging in the wake of the shooting of Alex Pretti.
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com

"In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, Secretary Noem repeated talking points pushed by White House aide Stephen Miller describing Pretti as a “domestic terrorist” who sought to inflict “maximum damage” on federal agents.

“This looks like a situation where an individual arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement,” Noem said during a press conference.

In his statement to reporters, Tillis further asserted that Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem crafted talking points before a formal incident report had been assembled.

“Those two people told the president before they even had an incident report whatsoever that the person who died was a terrorist. That is amateur hour at its worst,” Tillis said.

Tillis said he had “communicated” his concerns about Noem to the White House, which distanced President Trump from Miller’s statements during a press conference on Monday.

“I think she’s out of her depth, she’s proven that. She doesn’t know how to lead, how to de-escalate. She’s exposing ICE officers to dangerous situations, she’s exposing U.S. citizens to deadly situations,” Tillis said.

Tillis, however, stopped short of calling for Noem’s impeachment, saying her removal should be “a management decision.”

“She needs to go,” he said.

I agree. A simple " We don't have all the facts and will not be giving a statement at this time." would have been more appropriate.
Click to expand...
Add to that, the “domestic terrorist” and “inflict maximum damage” language came from an RNC memo that was immediately sent out to all minions right after the incident. That’s why you heard Noem and Bovino spouting nonsense so quickly. Never mind the video, we have to cast Pretti as an assassin. Heads should roll at the RNC as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen, EasternVol and NorthDallas40
#9,463
#9,463
Orange_Crush said:
Can you explain the criticism? I never appealed to an authority. I posted a video where someone made what I felt to be a compelling argument. You can either interact with the argument, or not. Doesn't bother me either way.

But at the end of the day, I posted a video with no comment whatsoever. I see you just can't break that habit of putting words in the mouths of others. Seems to be your one Fife-bullet. It's just that Barney was smart enough not to fire his.
Click to expand...
So why should you or anyone else, entertain Walter Hudson's opinion on the subject?
 
#9,464
#9,464
BeardedVol said:
So why should you or anyone else, entertain Walter Hudson's opinion on the subject?
Click to expand...
Are you serious? Is this an implicit admission that critical thinking is an alien concept for you, and you pretty much just look for perceived authorities to tell you how to think? Your posts are making so much more sense now.

Some people engage with arguments on their perceived merits. It's this radical new thing. I'm hoping it'll catch on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Behr and InVOLuntary
#9,465
#9,465
Rickyvol77 said:
Why would ICE watch us?
Click to expand...
They're casting a fairly broad net right now, lots of citizens are being detained as well as illegals. I think at least one citizen has been deported. That doesnt effect you or me because we're white, so we don't really see it. But as the crackdown goes on, the net will get wider and their are some light skinned Hispanics out there, so more citizens may face scrutiny maybe even people we know. Also, noem announced that protesters may be required to provide proof of citizenship, which would also lead to more citizens being detained -- and someone is going to have to be held in the detention camps provided for by the bbb...
 
#9,466
#9,466
Orange_Crush said:
Are you serious? Is this an implicit admission that critical thinking is an alien concept for you, and you pretty much just look for perceived authorities that you agree with to tell you how to think? Your posts are making so much more sense now.
Click to expand...
Lol so you just wanted to enlighten the board with a video of a random guy who holds the same opinion on the subject as you?
 
#9,467
#9,467
BeardedVol said:
An 'appeal to authority' argument doesnt really work when the person you pick, isn't even an authority on the subject.
Click to expand...
Would that make you an appeal to false authority. It describes you pretty good from reading the definition

www.logicallyfallacious.com

Appeal to False Authority

Using an alleged authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.
www.logicallyfallacious.com www.logicallyfallacious.com
 
#9,468
#9,468
BeardedVol said:
Lol so you just wanted to enlighten the board with a video of a random guy who hold the same opinion on th bsunject as you?
Click to expand...
He actually slightly changed some of my perspectives on the matter. I wanted to share a perspective that each listener could either engage with, or not. You seem to be choosing the latter. That's cool, obviously. Whatever floats your VN canoe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: appvol
#9,471
#9,471
Majors said:
He lays it out pretty well. Many here has said the same thing to be rebutted with the issues he summarized. Around 7 min. mark is the part the left can’t understand in making excuses for Pretti.
Click to expand...
This one’s wrapped up anyway. Lunatic gets ribs broken while attacking federal agents and goes back for revenge. Clearly his rage cost him his life.
Now that Tampon Tim has bent the knee to Trump and Homan let’s get this cleaned up, put the fraudsters and insurrectionist in prison, and move on to Chicago.
 
#9,472
#9,472
BeardedVol said:
So why should you or anyone else, entertain Walter Hudson's opinion on the subject?
Click to expand...
No one should entertain his opinion on the subject because of who he is. They should apply some critical thinking and engage with his argument for the sake of the argument. I posted this video because he posted some great nuance that I hadn't fully considered, but should have--nuance that I don't think many on either side of this board is fully discussing or considering. Or, more specifically, I think he phrases well what some in here may have trouble verbalizing in response to the BS "Bunch of fake 2A bootlickers!" caricature accusations.

Almost every conservative 2A proponent that I know believes:

1. You have a right to carry.
2. Rights do not decrease responsibility, they increase responsibility.
3. If you carry, you have a responsibility to do so responsibility, and allow the knowledge that you are carrying a gun to inform and direct the situations you put yourself into, and the actions you take.

When you carry a gun, you do so knowing that its use is extreme, and life-changing/ending for everyone that will become involved when it's used. You don't carry it to brandish. You don't carry it to shoot someone in the toe because of conflicting egos. You carry it as a last resort, so that if you ever do have to use it, you have the moral and ethical authority to do so.

As such, as a civilian, your duty is not to charge into confrontation, but to retreat and/or deescalate if possible. It is incredibly irresponsible to charge into conflict with LEO while armed. One can be completely pro-2A while also holding the opinion that with that right comes great personal responsibility while exercising that right. It's my opinion that one has the moral dictate to hold those two opinions simultaneously if they are to hold the first at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top