GUN!

I'd like to relate an experience I had to you.
About 25 years ago, I was pulled over in California for a traffic stop. No hint of criminal activity and I had no wants/ warrants. I was pleasant and cooperative. I was instructed to sit in the ditch with a female officer watching me while her partner went through my truck.  Physically, I'm about 15' from the door and the floor of the truck is 5' above the ground, so it's clearly not in my wingspan/lunge area.

Her reaction when he hollered GUN! was amazing. She drew down on me and was shaking visibly with her finger in the trigger guard. I honestly thought I had a fair chance of being shot. 

The incident in Minneapolis brought this memory up. While the nurse was a real dumb ass for going to a police action and inserting himself while armed, I do believe it was a bad shoot. I have no problem with him being armed, I'm always armed myself. I do have a problem with him not avoiding a problem area, he was clearly looking for trouble.

I get it, it was a very dynamic event, he wasn't sitting there peacefully and his pistol was discharged. I'm sure the first officer to fire didn't see that it wasn't in the dick head's hands. Given the scenario, I probably would've shot, too. While we have the luxury of watching the videos in the safety of our homes, they didn't.

This doesn't meet the standard of murder but I do believe it'll not be ruled justifiable homicide, especially in little Mogadishu. 

Your thoughts are encouraged.

I agree. The "victim" created the situation that resulted in his death. He was there expressly for the purpose of confrontation, and he brought a gun. I'll mourn his shooting, but I'm mourning what that's going to do to the two officers who reacted out of fear and in haste.

I can't help wondering if these officers were part of the new hire group that responded to the ads offering $50,000 signing bonus to join Ice. Also wondering how much training they received.

I also believe at least half of the fault for the two shootings lies with Gov. Walz and Mayor Frey. Their inflamatory statements to the public have done nothing to calm the issue, but have in fact stirred up more hatred and animosity toward federal officers trying to enforce federal laws.

Regarding Walz and Frey, it is my belief that they're involved in the fraud on such a level that they're in danger of being prosecuted and are stoking the fires to get out of a jam. If so, they're selfish ass holes who need people to die for them.

So Pretti is on video spitting on ICE and attacking them & kicking out a taillight and getting a broken rib….11 days before he assumed room temperature

Oh and he was armed….

As far as the shooting


Honestly it does not matter what anyone actually thinks, what matters is what does federal law say about use of force (State law is not applicable and neither state or local government can legally bring charges)

Officers were in a physical struggle with an armed suspect when a gun was perceived and the word “gun” was shouted (Fact)

Under settled self-defense law, officers are entitled to rely on fellow officers’ reasonable perceptions (Fact)

They do not have to personally confirm the threat (Fact)

Once a firearm appears during active resistance, the legal standard is simple: reasonable perception of imminent deadly force (Fact)

That standard was met here
(Fact)

Freeze-frame activism doesn’t override real-time dynamics, and the law does not require officers to wait to be shot (Fact)

This aligns with longstanding Supreme Court precedents:

• Graham v. Connor (1989): Excessive force claims are judged by “objective reasonableness” from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, considering the totality of circumstances—including active resistance and immediate threats—without 20/20 hindsight.

• Tennessee v. Garner (1985): Deadly force is permissible when officers have probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury.

• Barnes v. Felix (2025): In this unanimous recent ruling, the Supreme Court rejected narrow “moment-of-threat” limits, requiring courts to evaluate the full sequence of events (not just the final instant). This supports considering preceding struggles, resistance, and perceived threats like a shouted “gun” in armed encounters.

Officers operating as a team can reasonably rely on collective perceptions (similar to the “fellow officer rule” in probable cause cases).

The focus remains on real-time reasonableness and officer safety

(State law is not applicable and neither state or local government can legally bring charges)

I'm surprised to learn this. I'm assuming this is only when the actions in question take place during an official operation?

From what I understand the agents involved in the shooting were 1 CBP and 1 BP agent with the Border Patrol Agent using a Glock 19 and one CBP Officer using a Glock 47

Depending on academy & path your looking at around 6 months of training at a minimum before being released to a FTO

I pulled out my old FLETC use of force training manual I had. We had switched to FLETC use of force training and had to sit thru several 2 hour blocks on this and do computer training & testing out of & then yearly use of force computer training & testing and an individual stand along use of force evaluation

I’ve been involved with anti nuclear protests in the 80’s and it’s a real psychological problem whistles, screaming & yelling

Personally I can totally understand and justify the shoot…..

(State law is not applicable and neither state or local government can legally bring charges)

I'm surprised to learn this. I'm assuming this is only when the actions in question take place during an official operation?

The Supremacy Clause article VI section 2 covers this 

In a nutshell federal law enforcement in the performance of their duties are subject to federal law and not local/state laws

Like how California can say it’s illegal for ice to cover their face….but that law doesn’t mean anything due to the supremacy clause

Excellent video by a expert court witness on use of  force 

I’ve watched this a couple times & am seriously rethinking my earlier opinion that it was a justified shoot

I’m not so sure about that now & this is why the 72 hour rule is so important

That video mirrors my opinion but I've not studied all the different videos like he has, nor do I have his background. I thought Pretti's handgun had been discharged but evidently not. (minor point)

In their defense, there's a lot of adrenaline flowing. Couple that with all the whistles and such it'd be extremely difficult to think clearly, even with the slow motion thing I've experienced in high stress situations.