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

Uncensored2008 said:
Nope.

Police are allowed to kill you for assaulting them with a gun.

Don't wage war against the United States. Yes, you lost an election - but your decision to levy war against the United States gets your soldiers killed.
Click to expand...
Nobody assaulted them with a gun. We have all seen the video, even you.

That means you are knowingly telling lies.

You are a liar.
 
Crepitus said:
The bolded above is a lie.
Click to expand...

Nope, there is video. Looked like a .38 snub nose to me. Odd choice for a CCW. Makes me wonder if he planed to ditch it after the riot?

Clearly FAFO time didn't go the way he planned. But when you levy war against the United States - you are very likely to die.
 
Crepitus said:
Nobody assaulted them with a gun. We have all seen the video, even you.
Click to expand...

Yep, and he had a gun in his right hand.

Don't assault police for enforcing laws passed by congress you don't like.

If you do, while holding a gun - you will rightfully be shot.

Crepitus said:
That means you are knowingly telling lies.

You are a liar.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Don't levy war against the United States.

Your soldiers keep finding out the hard way it's a bad idea.
 
He went there with an agenda and using his gun seems to be one of them, luckily he was stopped before he unloaded both magazines at ICE officers and innocent people
 
volsrock is either crazy or lying. Pretti had a 1st Amendment to protest and a 2d Amendment right to carry a weapon. He never touched nor tried to touch his weapon. He attacked no ICE trooper. He was thrown to the ground and shot 10 times after his weapons was confiscated.
 
Crepitus said:
Then you are lying about what you saw or lying about watching them.
Click to expand...
You are lying right now. Wait, you are always lying when you are posting on JPP.

You don't have any truthful point, do you?

Crepitus said:
The facts are clear.
Click to expand...
I laid them out. Only leftist deniers are denying what is clearly depicted in the video.

Crepitus said:
The man made no threatening moves at all.
Click to expand...
The video clearly shows him reaching for his gun after it was taken. I'm guessing that your thought-masters don't allow you to see the videos that show the goods.

Crepitus said:
He was filming.
Click to expand...
Too funny! Yes, he was [taking video] at one point (nobody uses film anymore), but let's get back to the tussle in which Pretti was violently resisting arrest. He wasn't taking any video then. He went into the tussle armed with a loaded gun. He and the other ICE officers were unaware that his gun had been removed, and Pretti reached for it (thankfully it wasn't there anymore). The officers who saw him reach for his holster fired, killing him, then they asked "where's the gun?". At that point the officer who grabbed the gun says "I've got it" and they process the paperwork.
 
1769394104117.png

He had 63 rounds. Not was is necessary for practical carry purposes. He went there looking for a confrontation and got one.


And let's not forget that his parents have posted that he didn't usually carry his firearm but he chose to carry it to a protest that they asked him not to go to
 
Damocles said:
There are no, none, not even one U.S. jurisdictions that require absolute knowledge (i.e., 100% certainty or visual confirmation) that an attacker has a weapon before a civilian can use deadly force in self-defense. The universal standard across all states is reasonable belief in an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, not certainty about a specific weapon.

The reason "we" are "held to a higher standard" is that you are making sh*t up, applying imaginary standards that are not required and are simply wrong about every element of what you stated.
Click to expand...
Unlike with a police officer who can simply often say 'i feared he might have gun or knife' when the person simply is taking a cell phone out of his jacket that would never fly for a civilian killing another civilian.

The laws may seem similar (and they are) but how they are applied varies A LOT.


When it comes to civilians...

Bottom Line​

Fear Alone Is Not Enough

Your belief must be reasonable and grounded in observable facts, not speculation or paranoia.
A civilian must have a reasonable, evidence-based belief that they are about to be killed or seriously harmed.
“Was deadly force necessary to stop an imminent deadly threat?”
 
FastLane said:
Byrd murdered an unarmed woman. Preti was armed . You were fine with the murder of an unarmed woman that was no real physical threat to Byrd but you whine about an armed man. You are a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
Ashley and her ramping mob were the highest threat possible to Congress people and made that clear when they physically beat cops and broke into the Capital to get them.

Your lies will not fly here and his post has no hypocrisy.

Unless you can say every one in Texas or Florida who is on the right and shows up to a leftist protest armed can be killed by cops for being armed and there, then Preti being in his own neighborhood armed while being a witness to the protests is your own hypocrisy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top