Federal troops kill a man because he carried a concealed gun.

For the record, this was an execution. The video I just saw shows an ICE agent pull the gun out of the lower back area of Pretti. A second later, the ICE agents that JUST watched the other ICE agent pull out the gun and walk away, pulls out his gun and shoot Pretti in the back.
 
Jarod said:
Someone shouting "gun" does not justify lethal force. Guns are legal.
Click to expand...
However, someone shouting "gun" when some agents cannot see what the hands are doing but see movement towards what can be a holster can make the "reasonable law enforcement officer" who has no "should retreat" requirement (in fact the opposite) believe that there is danger. You seem to not understand the nuances of the law and how just the perspective of the officers that fired can change everything.

Like in the other instance, not understanding why he may have crossed in front of the vehicle to get a view where he could record the driver just assuming he's somehow just "stupid" rather than following training for the guy who is recording evidence...

If we were investigating this, the first step would be for you to stop knee jerking a judgement, the second would be for us to understand the perspectives of the agent or agents that fired. What was going on, what was shouted and when, all of this will matter.

I posted this earlier, but it still remains true, this time I added some explanations of why these matter, each point has to do with the law that applies here and not your feels or how you might charge a civilian.

Factors that will matter in this case:
• A physical struggle in a volatile, crowded environment, which increases the risk of sudden escalation (this affects the perspective of the agents).
• A perceived firearm during that struggle, which courts generally treat as an immediate deadly force threat (once they understand that there is a firearm they fully understand that things can escalate quickly).
• The possibility that officers believed the individual was attempting to access or retain a weapon (If they believed this, it will matter even if you do not think it should, it is the "what would a reasonable officer/agent believe" not what we know from hindsight that matters).
• Reliance on warnings or reactions from fellow officers, such as hearing another officer shout that a gun was present (if someone shouted "gun" and then agents saw arms moving in a way that they believe was him reaching for a gun, this will matter).
• The absence of a legal duty for police to retreat, unlike civilians in some states (they not only do not have the duty to retreat, they should not).
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You aren't looking at it objectively. This incident took place in a matter of a few confused seconds during a violent struggle between someone resisting arrest and law enforcement. There is no luxury of taking your time to make decisions in that situation.

Like I've said:

Pretti set himself up for failure by first having that pistol on him and then resisting arrest. When he continued to resist, at some point he made a wrong move, or one of the officers mistook what was happening, or both, and Pretti died for his initial mistake.

He shouldn't have been where he was and he shouldn't have been armed. That's not to say he couldn't protest, he could. His mistake was going up to the officers and their vehicle while armed. That is never a smart thing to do. You are just asking for trouble from the cops, any cops, doing that.
Click to expand...
Police are trained properly to this task


Oh and by the way science has determined that the human mind preceding THREAT in seconds when they encounter it


Proper training as in practicing scenarios to increase muscle memory to trim down even that response time plus the proper reaction to that threat

If a cop gets confused and doesnt follow their training properly

That does not excuse them for fucking up and killing ANYONE needlessly

They get charged and or stripped of their job


Otherwise all they have the right to just off people and say.

I was scared and confused

Ok no problem go back to work

You are proffering an insane system designed to get lots of humans dead
 
Damocles said:
However, someone shouting "gun" when some agents cannot see what the hands are doing but see movement towards what can be a holster can make the "reasonable law enforcement officer" who has no "should retreat" requirement (in fact the opposite) believe that there is danger. You seem to not understand the nuances of the law and how just the perspective of the officers that fired can change everything.

Like in the other instance, not understanding why he may have crossed in front of the vehicle to get a view where he could record the driver just assuming he's somehow just "stupid" rather than following training for the guy who is recording evidence...

If we were investigating this, the first step would be for you to stop knee jerking a judgement, the second would be for us to understand the perspectives of the agent or agents that fired. What was going on, what was shouted and when, all of this will matter.

I posted this earlier, but it still remains true, this time I added some explanations of why these matter, each point has to do with the law that applies here and not your feels or how you might charge a civilian.

Factors that will matter in this case:
• A physical struggle in a volatile, crowded environment, which increases the risk of sudden escalation (this affects the perspective of the agents).
• A perceived firearm during that struggle, which courts generally treat as an immediate deadly force threat (once they understand that there is a firearm they fully understand that things can escalate quickly).
• The possibility that officers believed the individual was attempting to access or retain a weapon (If they believed this, it will matter even if you do not think it should, it is the "what would a reasonable officer/agent believe" not what we know from hindsight that matters).
• Reliance on warnings or reactions from fellow officers, such as hearing another officer shout that a gun was present (if someone shouted "gun" and then agents saw arms moving in a way that they believe was him reaching for a gun, this will matter).
• The absence of a legal duty for police to retreat, unlike civilians in some states (they not only do not have the duty to retreat, they should not).
Click to expand...
It’s clear what happened


They are Jack booted thugs who would be just as happy to kill your daughter

You have lost your right to fly a Gladstone flag if you continue to defend jackbooted thugs
 
Damocles said:
However, someone shouting "gun" when some agents cannot see what the hands are doing but see movement towards what can be a holster can make the "reasonable law enforcement officer" who has no "should retreat" requirement (in fact the opposite) believe that there is danger. You seem to not understand the nuances of the law and how just the perspective of the officers that fired can change everything.

Like in the other instance, not understanding why he may have crossed in front of the vehicle to get a view where he could record the driver just assuming he's somehow just "stupid" rather than following training for the guy who is recording evidence...

If we were investigating this, the first step would be for you to stop knee jerking a judgement, the second would be for us to understand the perspectives of the agent or agents that fired. What was going on, what was shouted and when, all of this will matter.

I posted this earlier, but it still remains true, this time I added some explanations of why these matter, each point has to do with the law that applies here and not your feels or how you might charge a civilian.

Factors that will matter in this case:
• A physical struggle in a volatile, crowded environment, which increases the risk of sudden escalation (this affects the perspective of the agents).
• A perceived firearm during that struggle, which courts generally treat as an immediate deadly force threat (once they understand that there is a firearm they fully understand that things can escalate quickly).
• The possibility that officers believed the individual was attempting to access or retain a weapon (If they believed this, it will matter even if you do not think it should, it is the "what would a reasonable officer/agent believe" not what we know from hindsight that matters).
• Reliance on warnings or reactions from fellow officers, such as hearing another officer shout that a gun was present (if someone shouted "gun" and then agents saw arms moving in a way that they believe was him reaching for a gun, this will matter).
• The absence of a legal duty for police to retreat, unlike civilians in some states (they not only do not have the duty to retreat, they should not).
Click to expand...
You are making out a legal defense for the shooter, I’m saying that what happened should not have happened. He was shot in the back, while kneeling on the ground, with his hands being held up by his head by other agents, after the firearm had been removed from his rear of his pants.

In a courtroom what the reasonable agent would have believed is relevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top