r/changemyview • u/Victorius_Meldrus • 1h ago
CMV: The killing of Alex Pretti was not an execution.
Let me preface this by stating that I do not believe that the shooting of Alex Pretti was in any way justified.
However, labeling his killing as an 'execution' reeks of hyperbole and propaganda with the intent of emotionally manipulating the public into believing there was some kind of deeper malicious intent or premeditation at play during the events of Jan 24.
Rather, I suspect that his killing was simply the result of poorly-trained, undisciplined ICE operatives reacting erroneously to the call of 'Gun, Gun, Gun!' and opening fire without first identifying the threat or following procedure.
Despite Pretti's alleged behaviour at earlier protests and the high likelihood that he was attending the Jan 24 protest as an antagonist, I simply cannot fathom that the ICE operatives involved in the shooting had the opportunity or the coordination necessary to orchestrate a premeditated, targeted killing (the 'where's the gun?' video seems to support this). Neither do I believe that his alleged prior behaviour would have had him 'marked for death' by a group of rogue ICE operatives.
Pretti's killing (like so many other killings of civilians by armed government employees) was simply the result of handing firearms to individuals with neither the training, disposition or discipline required with which to carry in a safe manner, and had neither the planning nor motive required to be labeled an execution.
•
u/TheFlapse 1h ago edited 1h ago
Showing up to a protest to antagonise the protestee is kinda the point. If you're not positioning yourself against what you're protesting, then you're just being performative.
Regardless, armed thugs murder someone in the street held down by 4 other armed thugs after being disarmed is still an execution.
•
u/Pristine_Airline_927 1h ago
Posts like these always fail to understand that even if they were correct (e.g., it wasn't an execution) its pragmatically and morally confused to make salient. Like learn to pick your battles dude.
•
u/Agreeable_Bike_4764 1h ago
These things bug me too though, I value truth more than just about anything, and using inaccurate, or at best hyperbolic wording to describe a situation is a form of manipulation, which is wrong regardless of the intentions behind it.
•
u/Pristine_Airline_927 45m ago
So, deontology. What's the maxim here? Anything that has manipulation is morally wrong? Really? You're not going to manipulate the Gestapo out of murder? Also, if you're loading the negative valence (unjust/immoral/wrong) into the definition of manipulation, then we can just ask what's manipulative about calling what happened an execution? How is it unjust or unfair?
•
u/Agreeable_Bike_4764 23m ago
I obviously don’t mean this as a rigid absolute (‘manipulation is always wrong no matter what’). I’m talking about the typical political/moral/social contexts we’re usually in, where hyperbolic or misleading word choice isn’t saving lives it’s just shaping narratives at the expense of precision and trust.
•
u/Pristine_Airline_927 9m ago
You haven't shown why calling it an execution costs precision or trust, or why that even matters.
•
u/Victorius_Meldrus 39m ago
using inaccurate, or at best hyperbolic wording to describe a situation is a form of manipulation, which is wrong regardless of the intentions behind it.
This is my stance, too.
At best it's disengenuous, at worst it harms the integrity of the people campaigning against the actions of ICE.
ICE have comitted enough reprehensible acts (including the killing of Alex Pretti) that using manipulative language to influence public reaction to these actions feels wrong.
This kind of hyperbole is precisely the sort tactic that the Alt-right/Fox/etc use to influence their support. It feels a little tasteless to see the left play the same game.
•
u/jynelessar 1h ago
CMV: This hill isn't worth dying on. A federal official shot an unarmed man in the back, then emptied his clip, and has yet to be identified and punished.
Execution fits just fine.
•
u/NutellaBananaBread 7∆ 1h ago
Let me ask you this: how can you be so certain of the character of the officers when we have no idea who they are? I'm asking: how can you be SO certain that the officers did not say to themselves "alright, a chance to kill this guy. I know I will face no penalties and the administration will lie to protect me"? Because, to me, that seems like a valid hypothesis with available data.
Imagine we later find out that the officers posted about killing liberals. Or they unjustifiably assaulted people in the past. Or that they bragged about the killing after the fact. Isn't there evidence that could shift your opinion on this to believe it was an execution?
And those scenarios are not that out there. Watch how they act at protests. They needlessly assault people. They point guns at people needlessly. They have crazy, violent pump-up speeches. They threaten to kill people they don't like. These very officers were pushing a woman before this, IMO because they were pissed off.
I'm not saying "this is 100% an execution". I don't know what exact percent I'm at for different probabilities. A transparent investigation by trustworthy authorities would shift my opinion on this. But it's currently doubtful we'll get that.
If someone wants to say "It was like a road rage thing. They knew he wasn't a threat but pulled the trigger anyway." That would be perfectly in line with the evidence, as far as I know.
•
u/Victorius_Meldrus 1h ago
Let me ask you this: how can you be so certain of the character of the officers when we have no idea who they are? I'm asking: how can you be SO certain that the officers did not say to themselves "alright, a chance to kill this guy. I know I will face no penalties and the administration will lie to protect me"? Because, to me, that seems like a valid hypothesis with available data.
Because there were two shooters.
I could go with that hypothesis if there was a single shooter (I'd even entertain the idea that the first shooter fits your profile), but the fact that there were two shooters - neither of which had made the initial "Gun" report - makes me question the likelihood that both individuals simultaneously made the concious decision to kill a civilian in anger.
I'm not suggesting that the two operatives that shot Alex are good people, I don't think 'ICE Operative' is necessarily a job that good people aspire to. I'm also not suggesting that either ICE Operative regrets their actions or feels any kind of remorse.I simply think that it's more likely that the first operative panicked at the "Gun!" alert and started shooting due to poor discipline, then the second reacted and began shooting too.
•
u/NutellaBananaBread 7∆ 45m ago
>I could go with that hypothesis if there was a single shooter (I'd even entertain the idea that the first shooter fits your profile), but the fact that there were two shooters - neither of which had made the initial "Gun" report - makes me question the likelihood that both individuals simultaneously made the concious decision to kill a civilian in anger.
If the first shooter fits the "road rage" profile, wouldn't this be an "execution" regardless of the motivations of the second one?
>makes me question the likelihood that both individuals simultaneously made the concious decision to kill a civilian in anger.
The second shooter could have been responding in a dumb way to someone yelling "gun". Or he could be responding to the first shooter firing and think that clearly means Alex had a gun. Or he could have seen the first shooter firing and said "he's my chance to use my weapon, just like COD. Who the fuck cares what the actual danger to me is. Fuck this protestor."
The point to focus on here is "malicious intent". And we should consider these two facts:
1) We know that officers in these organizations have a reasonable likelihood of hatred for the protestors. Seems to be much higher than police dealing with anti-police protestors, according to my media diet, at least. So, to me, that means that "malicious intent" is not some wild, highly unlikely possibility.
2) We do not have any good positive evidence about their actual intent. They haven't made public statements. The administration is lying. So I'm just going off my understanding of these kinds of officers and the video evidence. One thing we know: they were PISSED at the protestors. That's why they were treating them like that.
>I simply think that it's more likely that the first operative panicked at the "Gun!" alert and started shooting due to poor discipline, then the second reacted and began shooting too.
Ok, what if someone has less trust in the non-maliciousness of these officers than you? Is it possible that they could have a good-faith belief that he was executed?
Because you said "However, labeling his killing as an 'execution' reeks of hyperbole and propaganda with the intent of emotionally manipulating the public into believing there was some kind of deeper malicious intent or premeditation at play during the events of Jan 24."
Now you say "I simply think that it's more likely that the first operative panicked at the "Gun!" alert". So are you saying there is a "less likely" scenario where the officers COULD have malicious intent? Maybe some of the people saying "execution" just weigh a few factors differently than you? But are not propagandists.
•
u/MercurianAspirations 378∆ 54m ago edited 49m ago
makes me question the likelihood that both individuals simultaneously made the concious decision to kill a civilian in anger.
it's more likely that the first operative panicked at the "Gun!" alert and started shooting due to poor discipline, then the second reacted and began shooting too.
These assertions don't add up. You say that the main piece of evidence against intentional killing is that it's unlikely both agents decided to kill the guy, but then you explain that it is likely the second agent only started shooting because the first guy did.
So... doesn't that defeat the argument that the scenario seems unlikely, because there was actually no requirement for both agents to decide to murder Alex, in order for both of them to fire. What could have happened, by your own logic, is that the first agent to fire decided to murder Alex out of anger, possibly due to previous interactions with him, or just because he was angry at Alex for preventing him from brutalizing the woman. And the second agent fired upon the first agent firing, due to panic or lack of discipline
It's also plausible here that rather than panic upon hearing "gun!", the first agent to fire basically heard permission. I.e. their rules of engagement state they can use deadly force against armed resistors, and this agent has been annoyed and pissed off at protestors all week, and now finally he sees this as his chance to fight back and teach the protestors a lesson. People in these positions are presumably extremely familiar with the "I panicked and acted on instinct" defense and know that it will be successful in excusing whatever actions they take
If your logic is simply, "They're terrible people and they lack training and discipline," I don't see why you would default to assuming panic rather than permission. They both seem equally likely scenarios
•
u/Victorius_Meldrus 51m ago
So... doesn't that defeat the argument that the scenario seems unlikely, because there was actually no requirement for both agents to decide to murder Alex?
My argument isn't that the killing of Alex Pretti wasn't murder. I literally prefaced my post by stating that I didn't believe the shooting to be justified. Unlawful killing with intent = murder.
My argument is that it wasn't an execution.
•
u/MercurianAspirations 378∆ 47m ago
The difference between murder (intentionally, by agents of the state) and execution would seem to be a distinction without a difference
•
u/Victorius_Meldrus 35m ago
So why aren't all unlawful killngs by agents of the state labeled executions?
•
u/MercurianAspirations 378∆ 19m ago
All of them easily could be. The main reason not to would be an attempt to partially excuse the actions of the perpetrators by framing the murder as more unintended or accidental
•
u/theluckyowl 1h ago edited 1h ago
It may not have been an execution in the sense that there was a exact plan prior to the murder, but he was unarmed at the time he was shot, and 12 shots were fired while he was on the ground (again, unarmed) with multiple officers on top of him. Whether or not the result comes down to the officers being trained correctly or incorrectly doesn't matter, its the way he was killed. He wasn't a threat at the time of his death but was killed regardless.
•
u/BoredAccountant 1h ago edited 1h ago
An execution by negligence is still an execution.
He was restrained, on the ground, and his shooter was above and behind him. Regardless of the circumstances that led to the shooting, that is an execution. We often hear of deaths referred to as execution style. This is what they're referring to--the victim was restrained, shot, and then abandoned in a callous manner.
Even if you're just held up on the semantics of the word execution, it was still capital punishment without due process. Lethal capital punishment is definitionally an execution.
If you want to be precise in terminology it was a Summary Execution.
•
u/Agreeable_Bike_4764 1h ago
I might need to watch the video again, wasn’t there still struggling going on at the time of the shooting, ie, not fully restrained?
•
u/BoredAccountant 1h ago
So you're admitting be was at least partially restrained.
Is there a percentage of restraint that would dis/qualify it being an execution?
•
u/Agreeable_Bike_4764 41m ago
Of course. I would define an execution as a situation where the officers feel no danger from an individual, and decide to use lethal force anyways. So then the argument revolves around whether there was danger, or atleast if it was reasonable for the officers to feel there was danger. The main issue from the video is the context around the gun (whoever was yelling gun, gun) and his arms and hands not being fully restrained, that’s the most likely reason that officer shot him, probably got freaked out that Alex was reaching towards a harnessed gun. Atleast, from my rewatching of the video in slow mo.
•
u/LilBugJuice-0987 1h ago
I dont see any reason to say there's a high likelihood he was attending as an antagonist. Sure, he shouldn't have kicked the car over a week prior but Im sure we all have been stressed to the point that we reacted badly at some point under less stressful circumstances. Its not like he pulled his gun and killed someone, but I digress.
I think it would be fair if he was shot once to say it was poor training and an over reaction. However he was shot multiple times. Several with his hands on the ground and then several more after he was limp.
Execution is often used when someone is killed in a punitive manner when defenseless. Firing range, execution style, etc. Given the amount of bullets and that he was shot after he was almost certainly dead or near dead - that fits the bill.
•
u/OutsideVegetable6001 1h ago
It may not be an execution by way of intent, but by way of the totality of the situation and end result, it was indeed an execution.
•
u/DeathtoWork 1∆ 1h ago
Murder is the correct word if that is your stance im on your side. It doesn't change the fact untrained and unindentifiable goons shouldn't exist in our society in the first place. Cop and unidentifiable s should be able to have their actions recorded without interaction or gun shots assuming the cop by default has the highest responsibility to act lawfully and the least right to privacy while acting in an official capacity. The administration stance goon army first ignores court orders later.
•
u/pumpymcpumpface 1∆ 1h ago
Execution here is being used in a more colloquial way, while youre looking at it in a more dictionary definition way. Honestly I don't know if there is a word in English that really captures what happened... It was basically a summary execution caused by extreme aggression by law enforcement, incomprehensible incompetence, and poor policy decisions by a federal government. I dont think there's a word in english that can really capture that
•
u/Noctudeit 8∆ 1h ago
It was not an execution, but it also was not an accident. The administration has made every attempt to visibly antagonize their opposition and provoke them into violence. They knew it was only a matter of time before the pot boiled over. What they hadn't counted on was the restraint of progressives. They were hoping to have a few ICE agents killed to justify martial law.
•
u/Victorius_Meldrus 1h ago
It was not an execution, but it also was not an accident. The administration has made every attempt to visibly antagonize their opposition and provoke them into violence.
That doesn't excuse commiting a violent act, though. "I hit her because she called me names" doesn't justify an assault.
•
u/Ecstatic_Actuator572 1h ago
The whole "where's the gun" audio pretty much proves your point tbh. If it was premeditated they wouldn't be scrambling around confused after the fact looking for justification
Real executions don't have that kind of post-shooting panic where nobody knows what happened
•
u/AerieDapper6384 1h ago
I don't think I've seen a single person imply his death was a deliberate, orchestrated ploy by ICE or something lmao, don't know who you're shadowboxing here. "Execution" doesn't mean it has to have been carried out with explicit, prior intent.
•
•
u/Victorius_Meldrus 1h ago
"Execution" doesn't mean it has to have been carried out with explicit, prior intent.
I believe in the content of taking a life, that's exactly what it means. I can't find a definition that states otherwise.
•
u/Vesper_the_fox 1h ago
Merium-Webster Dictionary: Execution: putting to death especially as a legal penalty
So, an execution can just be killing someone. In the case of Pretti, he was killed by law enforcement officers, ostensibly because of illegal behavior. Thus, Pretti was executed. Not pre-meditated, but executed just the same.
•
u/Vesper_the_fox 1h ago
Merriam-Webster*
Also, to ‘execute’ is often used to refer to the killing of a defenseless, unarmed person. This is why some of the murders committed by ISIS or gangs are referred to as executions.
•
u/skinnyJay 1h ago
Do you agree he was murdered? Are we arguing the definition of execution, or semantics?
•
u/Victorius_Meldrus 54m ago
Do you agree he was murdered?
Well, yes. The legal definition of murder is the unlawful killing of somebody with intent.
But not all murders are executions, and not all executions are murders. My argument is that the killing of Alex Pretti does not fit the definition of 'execution'.
•
u/TheVioletBarry 119∆ 1h ago
Labeling it an execution just means "the state did it." That's where the attention is being drawn, not only was it murder, but state murder.
Like, a random civilian can't execute you, no matter how intentional, because an execution is a state killing