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
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
![[-]](https://www.alpharomeo15.org/images/roundo/collapse_collapsed.png)
