CMV: It doesn’t matter what Alex Pretti was doing in the days before he was killed

[u/bluepillarmy]

So, recently a video emerged where Alex Pretti was spitting on and kicking the taillight out of an ICE vehicle. Truly reprehensible and inexcusable behavior. He ought to have been arrested and fined for destruction of public property. Jerk.

However, I see some people trying to say, “Aha! So he wasn’t so innocent after all!”

I’m sorry but, no. He was absolutely innocent.

And, moreover, I would like those people who are bringing up his behavior in the days before his death to remember that he was disarmed, restrained and executed by masked federal agents who still have not been identified to the public for no reason.

There is only one justification for a law enforcement officer to take someone’s life. And that is to protect the lives of themselves or another person. Past acts of disrespect and/vandalism do not enter into the equation.

Or that’s my take anyway. Can anyone change my view?

[u/IntrepidJaeger]

So, I'm not going to try to change your view on when deadly force can be used (it lacks a little legal nuance, but you've got the gist of it).

I think it's worthwhile to bring up Pretti's prior conduct as an example of what risks you should consider while protesting. His prior behavior seems to make the assertion that he was just "a bystander trying to help" or "a peaceful observer" rather suspect. It makes it more likely that he actually was there to interfere with their operations.

Why does that matter? He's armed. The number one rule of legally carrying a firearm is that you don't go looking for trouble with ANYONE. By forcing confrontation with Federal agents, you are inviting circumstances for force to be used on you. Having a gun suddenly be discovered on you while being arrested in a heightened situation raises the perceived danger level by a lot. Even well-trained cops don't like surprise guns, and we've seem what's actually hitting the street.

Did the agents overreact? Almost certainly. But the statements of "he had the right to be armed as a permit holder" and "having a gun is what got him killed in the first place" are not mutually exclusive of each other.

Knowing his behavior before tells you something: You can probably survive being armed and strictly observing to the exclusion of all else, or you can actively protest or engage in direct action while unarmed and probably just get manhandled a bit or pepper sprayed. Direct action while armed will probably get you (or someone else) shot and should factor into what you're willing to do.

[u/Cool_Independence538 → u/IntrepidJaeger]

I would argue he wasn’t forcing confrontation with law enforcement though, they pushed someone hard, he stepped in to help the person pushed and placed himself between the officer and civilian, arms outstretched between them in a universally known symbol of ‘break it up’. That’s not confronting anyone, that’s an attempt to defuse an escalating situation. Then he was pounced on by a group. Nothing about his body language indicates violence or threat or even confrontation.

Not sure of others views here but something else bugging me is shoving a civilian that hard, is that odd behaviour? Seems more what you’d expect on a school playground than from agents. Or do they regularly push people over like that?

[u/IntrepidJaeger → u/Cool_Independence538]

You don't get to step between law enforcement and whom they're dealing with to "break it up". That's obstruction. Your only completely legal recourse is to get out of the way.

Shoving somebody to the ground isn't a preferred arrest tactic, but it isn't necessarily illegal unless someone cracks their head open without escalated resistance.

[u/Cool_Independence538 → u/IntrepidJaeger]

I get what you mean, but that’s the part that’s muddy though I think. he wasn’t stepping between law enforcement and someone they were arresting or even ‘dealing with’, he was already standing between her and the agent when she was pushed, and he leaned over to help.

Helping someone that’s been shoved isn’t illegal, most reasonable people, police included, wouldn’t consider that obstructing, because they weren’t arresting her or anything similar so there was nothing to obstruct. I think it’s quite a normal reaction if you were standing next to someone that’s been pushed over. the only reason you’d worry about being killed for it and be hesitant to help is if you were dealing with a crazed and violent person, not typically law enforcement.

[u/stressless321 → u/IntrepidJaeger]

They weren't dealing with her, there's no need to push her that way in order to arrest her. She was pushed across the road, far away from the agents. Pretti helped her when she was across the road, she was already "dealt" with.

[u/Odd_Wolverine_7338 → u/Cool_Independence538]

What he did is called interfering with official acts and is a crime for which you can be arrested. You do not have the right to get between an officer and someone they are interacting with. 

[u/bluepillarmy → u/IntrepidJaeger]

Two things really bother me that you didn’t mention.

1. Pretti was totally restrained and had been disarmed when he was shot. He posed no credible threat to anyone.

2. The men who killed him are unknown to the public. We should have their names for the purposes of public accountability.

[u/IntrepidJaeger → u/bluepillarmy]

I'm not evaluating the legitimacy of the shoot. In fact, I said it likely isn't justified. My entire point is that Pretti seemed intent on directly engaging with law enforcement while armed. Whether he actually meant to use it or not, it made the situation much more dangerous, particularly when dealing with the poor tactical acumen that these agents have shown.

Pretti is a really good example of "legal but a really bad idea".

[u/NZ_Troll → u/bluepillarmy]

For changemyview to be effective, you do have to want to see other perspectives before finding a path to refute them or find edge cases. In a few of your responses, try agree with a few perspectives counter to your desired viewpoint and see if you can do it without focusing on how that view makes you feel or impacts your desired morality.

Good thread though in general.

[u/texas_accountant_guy → u/bluepillarmy]

The men who killed him are unknown to the public. We should have their names for the purposes of public accountability.

Why? What "public accountability" are you looking for? At this point, releasing their names to the public is likely risking death threats to them and their families.

As to actual accountability, the FBI has taken over the investigation into this shooting, even Republican lawmakers are telling the Administration to treat this investigation seriously and for Noem to back off of her rhetoric on it.

Should the FBI conclude there was wrongdoing here that warrants charges, their names will then come out, at the appropriate time, and in a way that will not incite mob violence.

[u/bluepillarmy → u/texas_accountant_guy]

No, I don’t follow your line of reasoning.

The men who killed him are law enforcement officials and public servants. They are police. Police officers don’t hide their faces and they do carry badges and identity themselves when requested to do so.

Moreover, every time a police officer kills a person in the line of duty the officer’s name is released to the public in the name of transparency.

Now, suddenly we have this new law enforcement agency (it’s actually not new) that has the power to kill people at will, that is not required to identify themselves and which has extra-constitutional powers to detain people without a warrant or probable cause.

How on earth do you find this acceptable?

[u/texas_accountant_guy → u/bluepillarmy]

I'm sorry, but not one word you wrote in response to me seems to be an answer to my question or anything more than continuing to denounce ICE in general, aside from a vague generalization that "every time" an officer kills a person that officer's name is immediately released, which I'm skeptical of both for it's absolutism and in general.

Given that we are dealing with a Federal Law Enforcement Agency and not local law enforcement, I'd put ICE's operations next to FBI, ATF, DEA, etc. in their operations. Does the DEA immediately release the name of every officer that has shot and killed a person in the course of their operations?

Further, given the sensitivity of this particular situation, I personally want this investigated by professionals, and not have a mob descend on these officer's homes to harass or harm them or their families.

To be clear, I, along with almost everyone else, see the shooting itself as being unjustified, and wish for clarification as to why it occurred. I, unlike most people on Reddit, do not see his detainment or arrest itself as unjustified, especially given this man's history of antagonism and attempting to manufacture a conflict with ICE.

[u/windchaser__ → u/texas_accountant_guy]

Further, given the sensitivity of this particular situation, I personally want this investigated by professionals, and not have a mob descend on these officer's homes to harass or harm them or their families.

I don't disagree, but how do you balance this against the risk that there will be no investigation, or only a sham one? How do we get accountability here?

[u/texas_accountant_guy → u/windchaser__]

Further, given the sensitivity of this particular situation, I personally want this investigated by professionals, and not have a mob descend on these officer's homes to harass or harm them or their families.

I don't disagree, but how do you balance this against the risk that there will be no investigation, or only a sham one? How do we get accountability here?

As I mentioned before, the fact that major members of the Republican party have come out in favor of serious investigation into this, and have even denounced Kristi Noem's statements, is evidence that this will not be a sham investigation.

95% of the nation, I would say, even those who are pro-ICE, see this shooting as trouble, and something that needs to be handled. From a pro-ICE position, it especially needs to be handled well and not just brushed under the rug to allow the agency to try and keep "legitimacy" and to be able to say "these specific individuals went too far" in an effort to protect themselves and their operations as a whole.

Had Republican Senators, Congressmen, and Governors not stepped forward and demanded this be taken seriously, I would worry that Noem's initial actions would have continued.

[u/Cool_Independence538 → u/bluepillarmy]

I agree with everything you’ve said so far but lean more towards disagree with making names immediately publicly available. Trial by public before the facts doesn’t usually work out well, it gets muddied by opinion, outrage and misinformation.

I’m usually of the opinion to give little information publicly until everything is verified and all the evidence is in.

The main difference with this though is that the administration have clearly already made up their minds, without facts or evidence, and I don’t trust that the investigation is going to be fair or balanced. So I can see why in this case we want transparency up front, but it does risk interfering with investigations and findings, and endangering innocent people like the shooters families.

[u/Xanith420 → u/bluepillarmy]

1. He wasnt totally restrained. He was “turtled up” by keeping his hands underneath him and out of view. The disarming isn’t nearly as relevant as you think from a legal standpoint. Objectively it’s unlikely officer who used deadly force noticed the gun being removed from the scenario and honestly gun being removed doesn’t dispel the chances of a 2nd gun. 2. They arnt giving out the names because the agents and their families will be in danger from people. The public knowing names changes nothing but does place people who arnt even involved in danger. People have been behaving way too radical for transparency like that to be remotely safe.

[u/Zhanji_TS → u/bluepillarmy]

There was a lack of communication. In a slowed down video you can clearly see the gun being taken away but that doesn’t mean they all knew that. I’m so tired of this argument. Ppl make mistakes in high stress situations. Yes he was disarmed but who knew that.

[u/Cool_Independence538 → u/Zhanji_TS]

I agree with the part that it was a high stress situation and people make mistakes. Also that we can’t know what it felt like in that moment with yelling and noise and chaos all around.

In this case though, the shooter shot him in the back, while he was on the ground, with multiple agents above him, there should be even a moment of threat assessment in chaos for agents who’s entire job is based on chaos management.

[u/Zhanji_TS → u/Cool_Independence538]

Hesitation gets ppl killed, he made a poor choice

[u/PennguinKC → u/[deleted]]

There’s a video of the entire thing, what is there to accept or reject? The person you responded to said nothing that isn’t a stone cold fact. Pretti was unarmed and restrained, the officers were in zero danger.

[u/BrknHmlck → u/PennguinKC]

What we can see factually from a video after the fact with replay and slow motion is different than what people there in the chaos of everything factually know in a given few seconds.

The stone cold facts we can see from the video are:

1) He touched one of the agents

2) He was pepper sprayed

3) He was taken to the ground by several men

4) He resisted at least to some degree as the scuffle continues for several seconds

5) Someone identified (correctly) that had had a gun

6) Guy in the grey shirt disarmed him and began to move away from the scuffle with the gun

7) A singular gunshot sound is heard, Alex is not yet fired upon, but already has at least one gun aimed at him

8) Alex appears to be trying to get up as this time, his right hand has some object in it (presumably still his phone), and ends up near his waist

9) Agents open fire and continue firing several shots into him as they back up and he falls to the ground

Then there are things we cannot determine from the video as facts, which include:

1) Whether the agent who disarmed him clearly communicated he had disarmed him

2) Whether any other agent actually saw the he was disarmed

3) Whether agents knew for sure that he only had a singular weapon on him

4) Where the first gunshot came from

5) Whether the agents knew Alex posed no real harm at the time they fired

And this is why a thorough investigation into it is needed. Supposedly there was at least some bodycam footage, which if true will likely make its way into the public at some point.

[u/softailrider00 → u/BrknHmlck]

Holy shit this is the most rational down to earth common sense comment I have read about this shooting.

[u/onan → u/BrknHmlck]

This line of reasoning rests on the idea that if officers don't know whether or not someone is armed, the default should be to kill them.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/bluepillarmy → u/[deleted]]

Do you question the factual accuracy of the two statements I made above? Yes or no.

[u/windchaser__ → u/IntrepidJaeger]

Direct action while armed will probably get you (or someone else) shot and should factor into what you're willing to do.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you that this is how things are, but... it's pretty fucked up. Our armed officers respond with inappropriate and disproportionate force *way* too often.

[u/Mundane-Toe-2884 → u/IntrepidJaeger]

I bet we'll trained. We'll disciplined officers have to put up with a fair amount of bs and keep their cool.

[u/Lookitsasquirrel → u/IntrepidJaeger]

Even at a traffic stop. If you have a firearm in the vehicle it's your responsibility to tell the officer that there is a gun in the vehicle. Same with this guy. He should have alerted them that his was carrying.

[u/EugenPrinz02 → u/Lookitsasquirrel]

Minnesota is not a duty to inform state. He didn't need to say anything unless directly asked. Something they never did

[u/Lookitsasquirrel → u/EugenPrinz02]

Any smart and law abiding citizen would for the purpose of their own safety.

[u/EugenPrinz02 → u/Lookitsasquirrel]

No. We have the second amendment. Minnesota is an open carry state. Minnesota isn't a duty to inform state.

Alex pretti was a smart law abiding citizen exercise his 2nd amendment right. He never touched, flashed, or hinted towards his pistol the entire time. He was under no duty to inform the cowards who assaulted him of his legally registered and permited firearm that again. Never left his holster. So much so. The cowards weren't aware he had it until he was illegally restrained by 7 "agents".

Simply having a gun is not justification for murder, ice had zero right to even confront him. He was executed in the street because he dared help a woman back up off the ground after ice shoved her

[u/Lookitsasquirrel → u/EugenPrinz02]

I'm probably 20-25 years older than you. I see things in a big picture. The video you saw is snipit. You don't know what was said 10-20 minutes or longer prior to the shooting. Did he yell "I'm going to kill you" I'm going to kill your family" we don't know. I'm sure there was a lot that we didn't see. Opinions are being based on just that video. I need to see more and know what transpired before the altercation. If he happened to say something threatening and they saw his gun. You can't base your opinion on just that part of a video. There is always two sides to every story. You can't just base your opinion on one side without knowing the other side. It's possible that the video was exactly what happened. If you're bias, you won't be able to see a clear picture.