Too much ice

#9,551
#9,551
Smokey123 said:
That hasn’t stopped them from getting acquitted in the past and then everyone defending it now will double down. Rinse repeat
Click to expand...
Normally I would agree with you that in the past, they would probably get off. But some things already feel different in this case:
- Bovino and Noem have already been exiled from Minnesota. Bovino is already under the bus and Noem has stepped off the curb. Even though Trump gave her the dreaded vote of confidence, I believe she is in trouble.
- https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/27/stephen-miller-cbp-alex-pretti-00751583. Trump’s resident pit Yorkie, Stephen Miller, has already admitted that protocol may not have been followed in this case. Normally you would NEVER see him back down so quickly. He would rather eat a pile of monkey dung.
- More than just Democrats are calling for a thorough investigation and are demanding accountability. Ted Cruz has even questioned what went on.

Trump has been noticeably quiet (for him) about the situation and is clearly trying to back away from it. I believe the pressure is going to ratchet up even more and I believe he will want to make this go away as quickly as possible. The longer it festers, the look gets worse. Unless he declares war on somebody, it ain’t going away. I said yesterday that somebody is taking the fall for this and I believe it’s Noem, somebody at the RNC for the premature memo and the agents who killed Pretti. We shall see.
 
#9,552
#9,552
Orange_Crush said:
Do you want to use the technical terms, or not? A LEO reacting to someone that is trying to prevent them from doing their job is not legal "assault". Physically engaging (a term I used for Pretti's actions as well) is defined as felonious assault on a LEO. Don't like it? Send your representatives a sternly worded email.
Click to expand...
But no comments about unlawfully using pepper spray on him? The courts have ruled multiple times against excessive force
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol
#9,553
#9,553
NorthDallas40 said:
I don’t know why MSNBC did this but if it happened like the Bee claims it looks pretty intentional.

View attachment 810563
Click to expand...

Because that's what the media does now. They want to put an angle on anything they think they can get away with. They are incapable of just sticking to what happened. Have a transcript? Edit it to make one person look bad. Have a video of an interview with a candidate? Edit their answers to questions so they appear less stupid. Have an image of a victim? Edit it to make him look more attractive.
 
#9,554
#9,554
MercyPercy said:
See if you don't have a physical reaction getting tackled to the ground and beat on. Simply defending yourself is construed as resisting/fighting. I repeat, at no point in the video did he use any violence against the agents. They were using a ton of violence against him (and the woman they tossed to the ground) and he never even raised his fists. You make it sound like he was beating up on them and attacking them when it's the complete opposite.

Is struggling on the ground while agents dog pile you and hit you grounds for resisting arrest? In this screwed up system, probably. It's not grounds for dumping a mag into his back.
Click to expand...
I don’t know there Percy. That pepper spray can was taking an absolute beating from Pretti’s head.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeardedVol, EasternVol, NashVol11 and 2 others
#9,555
#9,555
NorthDallas40 said:
The fake 2a boot licker comments from me are based on the “shall not be infringed” speed of light pivot to “well of course you have to have a permit”. That’s about the most solid example of hypocrisy I’ve seen in a while.
Click to expand...
I think it might be worth gaming this out at least a little bit.

We do not, nor have we for some time, legally lived in a true absolutist "shall not be infringed" situation. If one wished to argue that "should" be the case so be it but such arguments don't reflect our current reality. Bruen basically took "may issue" off the table and made "shall issue" the minimum default. This still allows for states to require a permitting process but eliminated the "proper cause" limitation in issuance. Anyone discussing permits with regard to legally carrying is actually correct to do so under current law. (again, disagreeing with that limitation being in place doesn't change the reality)

The better "What the hell?" in this is where some have now decided to push a narrative of where even those lawfully permitted to carry should be allowed to do so. I think that is more in line with what you and others are trying to underscore. Suddenly deciding "Well, you can carry in public spaces but we really need to start setting limits on what that actually means." doesn't work for me nor should it work for anyone trying to uphold the 2A. It's a kind of end run, like people that say "If we can't get the guns let's clamp down on the ammo.". Now it's "Hey we're okay with having carry permits we just need to clamp down on where they are actually valid.".
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and Smokey123
#9,556
#9,556
Delmar said:
Normally I would agree with you that in the past, they would probably get off. But some things already feel different in this case:
- Bovino and Noem have already been exiled from Minnesota. Bovino is already under the bus and Noem has stepped off the curb. Even though Trump gave her the dreaded vote of confidence, I believe she is in trouble.
- https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/27/stephen-miller-cbp-alex-pretti-00751583. Trump’s resident pit Yorkie, Stephen Miller, has already admitted that protocol may not have been followed in this case. Normally you would NEVER see him back down so quickly. He would rather eat a pile of monkey dung.
- More than just Democrats are calling for a thorough investigation and are demanding accountability. Ted Cruz has even questioned what went on.

Trump has been noticeably quiet (for him) about the situation and is clearly trying to back away from it. I believe the pressure is going to ratchet up even more and I believe he will want to make this go away as quickly as possible. The longer it festers, the look gets worse. Unless he declares war on somebody, it ain’t going away. I said yesterday that somebody is taking the fall for this and I believe it’s Noem, somebody at the RNC for the premature memo and the agents who killed Pretti. We shall see.
Click to expand...
I hope so but we’ll see. I don’t have much faith in it happening even if it goes to a jury
 
#9,561
#9,561
Orange_Crush said:
So, it's your argument that being forcibly subdued by multiple agents != resisting/fighting?

This is him engaging the officer.

View attachment 810704

This is multiple agents trying to subdue someone that you seem to be claiming has gone completely passive and submitting to arrest:

View attachment 810706
Click to expand...
I can't make heads or tails out of those blurry images
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey123
#9,564
#9,564
appvol said:
Still haven’t had anyone tell me if ICE or Border Patrol carry Tasers. If not seems like if they did it might of saved someone’s life when they were trying to arrest Pretti
Click to expand...
This is why the local police should have been there. They should be protecting ICE when protesters get in their way
 
#9,566
#9,566
hndog609 said:
I think it might be worth gaming this out at least a little bit.

We do not, nor have we for some time, legally lived in a true absolutist "shall not be infringed" situation. If one wished to argue that "should" be the case so be it but such arguments don't reflect our current reality. Bruen basically took "may issue" off the table and made "shall issue" the minimum default. This still allows for states to require a permitting process but eliminated the "proper cause" limitation in issuance. Anyone discussing permits with regard to legally carrying is actually correct to do so under current law. (again, disagreeing with that limitation being in place doesn't change the reality)

The better "What the hell?" in this is where some have now decided to push a narrative of where even those lawfully permitted to carry should be allowed to do so. I think that is more in line with what you and others are trying to underscore. Suddenly deciding "Well, you can carry in public spaces but we really need to start setting limits on what that actually means." doesn't work for me nor should it work for anyone trying to uphold the 2A. It's a kind of end run, like people that say "If we can't get the guns let's clamp down on the ammo.". Now it's "Hey we're okay with having carry permits we just need to clamp down on where they are actually valid.".
Click to expand...
I agree your take is a better example of what actually transpired in this huge cognitive dissonance example and I agree with it.

I honestly just busted out loud laughing at posts by some of the people here and on FB who are solidly in the “shall not be infringed” camp as used the phrase. And then immediately cucked up when required to do so for their lord and savior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol and hndog609
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top