Not sure why the Minnesota Ice and Run thread got locked by the originator but.....

truck
Posts
3894
Joined
6/10/2015
Location
Louisville, KY, USA
Fantasy
1/28/2026 6:39am
truck wrote:
Yes I carry illegally all the time. Unlike Pretti I avoid conflict at all costs when carrying, legally or illegally. See the difference?I do not care...

Yes I carry illegally all the time. Unlike Pretti I avoid conflict at all costs when carrying, legally or illegally. See the difference?

I do not care that he was carrying illegally, I care that he put himself and others in danger while doing so. Carrying stupidly is the part that bothers me.

I do not care that he was carrying illegally, but since I'm subjected to petty laws put in place by gun haters, I'm not about to let those same people insist this guy was carrying legally when he wasn't. 

Ratio away! 

Timo wrote:

You need to read the latest DHS report before further posting...

Got a link? What am I looking for? I'm open to info if I've got the facts wrong somewhere. 

3
R66
Posts
1424
Joined
4/16/2021
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
1/28/2026 6:40am

When you go after me, that’s how I know I am over the target. Here is another thing I heard recently. The intercepted Signal chat that is being used by the resistance in MN to coordinate interference with ICE is being directed by MN government officials. Stay tuned. Have a great day! Take care!

5
15
T-MAC
Posts
694
Joined
8/15/2011
Location
Trabuco Canyon, CA, USA
1/28/2026 6:41am
truck wrote:
Yes I carry illegally all the time. Unlike Pretti I avoid conflict at all costs when carrying, legally or illegally. See the difference?I do not care...

Yes I carry illegally all the time. Unlike Pretti I avoid conflict at all costs when carrying, legally or illegally. See the difference?

I do not care that he was carrying illegally, I care that he put himself and others in danger while doing so. Carrying stupidly is the part that bothers me.

I do not care that he was carrying illegally, but since I'm subjected to petty laws put in place by gun haters, I'm not about to let those same people insist this guy was carrying legally when he wasn't. 

Ratio away! 

So is your point basically 'play stupid games, win stupid prizes'?

I think carrying illegally, regardless of environment, classifies as 'stupidly' to many. You carry illegally, but responsibly. I see how you guys are different now.

Can you provide a link to something reasonably credible that points to him carrying illegally? Though I guess you don't care about this part, just 'stupidly', which is fair. I'd put Rittenhouse in the same boat, though I think it's quite clear he was looking to do more agitating than Pretti.

How did he put himself and others in danger? To the point of needing to kill him?

Even Stephen Miller has acknowledged a possible breach of protocol by the ICE officers resulting in the death of this citizen. I was pretty shocked by this.

If ICE worked with moral integrity and to the standard they are trained to, I don't think people would have nearly as much of an issue vs how they are currently conducting their business.

1000005494.png?VersionId=fcrxmFJde

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-fbi-director-patels….

2
2
SKlein
Posts
1494
Joined
3/25/2014
Location
MN, MN, USA
1/28/2026 6:42am
R66 wrote:
When you go after me, that’s how I know I am over the target. Here is another thing I heard recently. The intercepted Signal chat that...

When you go after me, that’s how I know I am over the target. Here is another thing I heard recently. The intercepted Signal chat that is being used by the resistance in MN to coordinate interference with ICE is being directed by MN government officials. Stay tuned. Have a great day! Take care!

So, no source?

4
2

The Shop

1/28/2026 6:45am
truck wrote:
At no point have I said any of it was OK. People keep reading things into what I'm saying instead of reading what I'm saying. Once they...

At no point have I said any of it was OK. People keep reading things into what I'm saying instead of reading what I'm saying. 

Once they determined he was interfering there was no possibility for it to be legal carry at that point. A permit wouldn't have changed that. The presence of the gun and the interfering equates to unlawful carry. The lack of a permit just means it was also unlawful carry prior to that. 

Apologies mate, I was initially trying to multi-quote in my reply to yours. The first half of my post was to you, but the rest was in general about this topic.

Didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

3
R66
Posts
1424
Joined
4/16/2021
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
1/28/2026 6:56am
SKlein wrote:

So, no source?

Is this your contribution to this thread? Let me know when you actually have something to say. Have a great day! Take care!

11
SKlein
Posts
1494
Joined
3/25/2014
Location
MN, MN, USA
1/28/2026 6:59am
R66 wrote:

Is this your contribution to this thread? Let me know when you actually have something to say. Have a great day! Take care!

Anecdotal references aren't facts, could you actually benefit the conversation by providing context to your statements? It's honestly not much to ask.

10
2
Peddy
Posts
136
Joined
9/27/2016
Location
Upland, CA, USA
1/28/2026 7:01am
truck wrote:
It became illegal the instant he interfered, resisted, blocked traffic, showed up without his permit, etc. He wasn't carrying legally when he was shot. He just...

It became illegal the instant he interfered, resisted, blocked traffic, showed up without his permit, etc. He wasn't carrying legally when he was shot. He just wasn't. Sorry, those are the laws the libs wanted, I didn't come up with them. 

2A absolutist here, sorry, you don't get to claim it now when it's convenient after you put all these shit laws into place. If you'd like to do away with all of these 2A qualifiers, I'm here for it! 

Full transparency, I carry illegally all the time. Calculated risk. If you don't have metal detectors...... However unlike Pretti, that means I sprint in the opposite direction of conflict, I don't walk into it. You'll never know it's there unless I have to use it. 

Peddy wrote:
He didn't resist. He helped a lady up who was shoved for no reason and then got maced, tackled, and shot for it. How wasn't he...

He didn't resist. He helped a lady up who was shoved for no reason and then got maced, tackled, and shot for it. How wasn't he carrying legally when he was shot?

It sounds like you're being a murder apologist for ICE. No one knew his gun was there until they, for no reason, threw him to the ground.
 

truck wrote:
Well I disagree about the interfering and resisting but I suppose that's up for debate. What isn't up for debate is Minnesota carry law. It says...

Well I disagree about the interfering and resisting but I suppose that's up for debate. What isn't up for debate is Minnesota carry law. It says you have to have permit with you at all times to carry lawfully. It's been reported that he didn't. So not carrying lawfully. Petty for sure, but it certainly wasn't conservatives who got that written into law. That would be one of those gun laws liberals use to make it more difficult for people to carry legally so they can infringe on the right. You don't get to ignore it now when it messes up your martyr story. The officers knowledge of the gun or his permit has nothing to do with whether or not he was carrying legally. 

Can you please give a source for him not having his permit on him?

3
2
BH_84
Posts
379
Joined
10/28/2024
Location
Cameron, ON, CA
Fantasy
1/28/2026 7:11am
SKlein wrote:

So, no source?

R66 wrote:

Is this your contribution to this thread? Let me know when you actually have something to say. Have a great day! Take care!

I’m impressed that you have the confidence to speak as if you’ve contributed anything of value. 

10
2
Peddy
Posts
136
Joined
9/27/2016
Location
Upland, CA, USA
1/28/2026 7:18am
ToolMaker wrote:
Well, if you want to play the what if game. What if, and I think it's more likely than your what if. He got banged up...

Well, if you want to play the what if game. What if, and I think it's more likely than your what if. He got banged up the previous week and decided this week he'll bring his weapon and if that happens again he'll pull his weapon and "suicide by cop" to get famous and it went exactly as he planned only he didn't have to pull his weapon. You see, there's a lot of what if(s).

TM

Peddy wrote:
However, we saw his actual demeanor and actions in the second confrontation that lead credence to more of my 'what ifs' than your 'what ifs.' If...

However, we saw his actual demeanor and actions in the second confrontation that lead credence to more of my 'what ifs' than your 'what ifs.' If your what ifs is anywhere plausible, we would have seen him actually pull his gun out. All he did was get maced/filmed and tried to help a lady up. Yours is increasingly less likely based on the available evidence.

ToolMaker wrote:
You totally missed the point. The point is you keep trying to make this guy into some sort of saint that has zero responsibility here. It's...

You totally missed the point. The point is you keep trying to make this guy into some sort of saint that has zero responsibility here. It's just as easy to throw out a scenario where he has all the responsibility. Most likely, it's something in-between. Like I've been saying all along. The events of the day led to a tragedy that nobody wanted to happen. Those agitators are there for one reason. To disrupt ICE's ability to do their job to the point they are not successful. They disrupted the operation to the point that created the situation where someone got killed. It's a terrible tragedy. If they weren't there agitating, that career agitator would be alive today.

TM

Ya, I expect ICE to not use lethal force in a non lethal situation even if someone is a career agitator. Blowing whistles and filming is a first amendment right. The responsibility here lies solely with ICE.

8
1
mvd61
Posts
1317
Joined
10/15/2021
Location
Brandon, SD, USA
1/28/2026 7:27am
El_Rayo wrote:

?? It was a woman protestor. What are you talking about. 

OldTech wrote:
The guy The whole operation was after was Jose Huerta Chuma, A domestic abuser and violent assault alien. The guy with the gun and the woman...

The guy The whole operation was after was Jose Huerta Chuma, A domestic abuser and violent assault alien. The guy with the gun and the woman in the pink coat tipped him off and interfered to let him escape. They are part of the ICE watch organization who are communicating through the signal encrypted apps with advanced information on who the agents are looking for. 

I read that supposedly the Lt. Governor of Mn is in those signal chats too. 

APLMAN99
Posts
12735
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR, USA
Fantasy
1/28/2026 7:34am
truck wrote:
Well I disagree about the interfering and resisting but I suppose that's up for debate. What isn't up for debate is Minnesota carry law. It says...

Well I disagree about the interfering and resisting but I suppose that's up for debate. What isn't up for debate is Minnesota carry law. It says you have to have permit with you at all times to carry lawfully. It's been reported that he didn't. So not carrying lawfully. Petty for sure, but it certainly wasn't conservatives who got that written into law. That would be one of those gun laws liberals use to make it more difficult for people to carry legally so they can infringe on the right. You don't get to ignore it now when it messes up your martyr story. The officers knowledge of the gun or his permit has nothing to do with whether or not he was carrying legally. 

That's a lot of words to mentally dance around the fact that he was tackled to the ground before they knew he was carrying a weapon...

That's a lot of words to mentally dance around the fact that he was tackled to the ground before they knew he was carrying a weapon. The weapon was removed. He was still on the ground and it doesn't appear in any videos that they even considered bothering to see if he was lawful in carrying that weapon like you seem so concerned about by stating the apparent carry law for that state. Instead he was fired at and killed while on the ground.

You don't go and harass police/law enforcement. That's asking for trouble. I agree with you above, it's debatable whether he was resisting and tackling him was required in the first place until we get to see the ICE body cameras and what the deceased was filming on his phone.

But the point many of us can't understand is how so many people on here are happy to accept exactly what we saw as okay. Someone gets shots multiple times and killed when they had just been unarmed and hadn't even been able to take their feet.

truck wrote:
At no point have I said any of it was OK. People keep reading things into what I'm saying instead of reading what I'm saying. Once they...

At no point have I said any of it was OK. People keep reading things into what I'm saying instead of reading what I'm saying. 

Once they determined he was interfering there was no possibility for it to be legal carry at that point. A permit wouldn't have changed that. The presence of the gun and the interfering equates to unlawful carry. The lack of a permit just means it was also unlawful carry prior to that. 

truck, you’re mixing 3 different things into one story and trying to call it law.

Carry legality, alleged interference, and use of force aren’t the same thing.

He was tackled before they knew he was armed.
The weapon was removed.
He was on the ground.
He wasn’t holding a gun.
He was shot anyway.

So the permit argument is irrelevant to the moment that matters.

Even if he lacked a permit, that’s a licensing issue, not a lethal-force justification.
There’s no doctrine that says interference + firearm = lawful killing.

And saying you’re “not victim-blaming” while listing reasons why the victim caused his own outcome is victim-blaming, just repackaged as 'legal analysis'.

If the shooting was justified, argue the shooting justification.
If it wasn’t, stop laundering it through paperwork, hypotheticals, and retroactive fault finding.

That’s not legal reasoning, it’s narrative cover.

12
1
R66
Posts
1424
Joined
4/16/2021
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
1/28/2026 7:36am
mvd61 wrote:

I read that supposedly the Lt. Governor of Mn is in those signal chats too. 

How long until someone asks where you read or heard that? 

“Source?” seems to be the new “whataboutism” when someone doesn’t like the post. I heard the same thing. 

2
17
truck
Posts
3894
Joined
6/10/2015
Location
Louisville, KY, USA
Fantasy
1/28/2026 7:37am
truck wrote:
Yes I carry illegally all the time. Unlike Pretti I avoid conflict at all costs when carrying, legally or illegally. See the difference?I do not care...

Yes I carry illegally all the time. Unlike Pretti I avoid conflict at all costs when carrying, legally or illegally. See the difference?

I do not care that he was carrying illegally, I care that he put himself and others in danger while doing so. Carrying stupidly is the part that bothers me.

I do not care that he was carrying illegally, but since I'm subjected to petty laws put in place by gun haters, I'm not about to let those same people insist this guy was carrying legally when he wasn't. 

Ratio away! 

T-MAC wrote:
So is your point basically 'play stupid games, win stupid prizes'?I think carrying illegally, regardless of environment, classifies as 'stupidly' to many. You carry illegally, but...

So is your point basically 'play stupid games, win stupid prizes'?

I think carrying illegally, regardless of environment, classifies as 'stupidly' to many. You carry illegally, but responsibly. I see how you guys are different now.

Can you provide a link to something reasonably credible that points to him carrying illegally? Though I guess you don't care about this part, just 'stupidly', which is fair. I'd put Rittenhouse in the same boat, though I think it's quite clear he was looking to do more agitating than Pretti.

How did he put himself and others in danger? To the point of needing to kill him?

Even Stephen Miller has acknowledged a possible breach of protocol by the ICE officers resulting in the death of this citizen. I was pretty shocked by this.

If ICE worked with moral integrity and to the standard they are trained to, I don't think people would have nearly as much of an issue vs how they are currently conducting their business.

1000005494.png?VersionId=fcrxmFJde

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-fbi-director-patels….

Yes that's essentially what it boils down to. You just can't do what he did if you're carrying. The responsibility to stay out of those situations is repeated over and over again in any concealed carry class and it's just common sense on top of that. You run from conflict. The presence of the gun, no matter how legal it is, instantly elevates the danger in any situation you may get into. This shooting may be wrong on many levels, but it's just head in the sand stuff if you don't admit that the presence of his gun was a factor that led to the outcome. Whether it should have or not is a separate issue. It did, and not in an unpredictable way. 

When I talk about carrying illegally I'm talking about gun free zones. I pay zero attention to them unless a place is truly controlled access with their own armed security. Short of that, I'm not leaving it in the car because you've got a sticker on your window. I'm sure I also violate laws on carrying where alcohol is served. If I'm out to dinner with my family, again, I'm not leaving it in the car because the place we're eating at is neighborhood bar and grill. If I'm going to the bar with friends to watch a game and drink some beer, sure, then I'm not carrying. 

I don't have a primary source for him not having permit on him. Have heard it repeated several places but if it turns out to be untrue I would not be surprised. The bigger issue is him impeding law enforcement. The moment he didn't run from the conflict, stepped back out into the street instead of onto the sidewalk, carrying the gun became illegal whether the permit was present or not. Even if you want to argue thar he didn't impede, didn't resist, or do anything else illegal, the fact that he walked close enough to that line that we can debate it while carrying a gun is very stupid. 

4
2
truck
Posts
3894
Joined
6/10/2015
Location
Louisville, KY, USA
Fantasy
1/28/2026 7:41am
Peddy wrote:
However, we saw his actual demeanor and actions in the second confrontation that lead credence to more of my 'what ifs' than your 'what ifs.' If...

However, we saw his actual demeanor and actions in the second confrontation that lead credence to more of my 'what ifs' than your 'what ifs.' If your what ifs is anywhere plausible, we would have seen him actually pull his gun out. All he did was get maced/filmed and tried to help a lady up. Yours is increasingly less likely based on the available evidence.

ToolMaker wrote:
You totally missed the point. The point is you keep trying to make this guy into some sort of saint that has zero responsibility here. It's...

You totally missed the point. The point is you keep trying to make this guy into some sort of saint that has zero responsibility here. It's just as easy to throw out a scenario where he has all the responsibility. Most likely, it's something in-between. Like I've been saying all along. The events of the day led to a tragedy that nobody wanted to happen. Those agitators are there for one reason. To disrupt ICE's ability to do their job to the point they are not successful. They disrupted the operation to the point that created the situation where someone got killed. It's a terrible tragedy. If they weren't there agitating, that career agitator would be alive today.

TM

Peddy wrote:
Ya, I expect ICE to not use lethal force in a non lethal situation even if someone is a career agitator. Blowing whistles and filming is...

Ya, I expect ICE to not use lethal force in a non lethal situation even if someone is a career agitator. Blowing whistles and filming is a first amendment right. The responsibility here lies solely with ICE.

There's no right to block traffic, disobey orders to get back during law enforcement operation, or to try to help someone law enforcement is trying to take into custody. 

5
6
Peddy
Posts
136
Joined
9/27/2016
Location
Upland, CA, USA
1/28/2026 7:47am
ToolMaker wrote:
You totally missed the point. The point is you keep trying to make this guy into some sort of saint that has zero responsibility here. It's...

You totally missed the point. The point is you keep trying to make this guy into some sort of saint that has zero responsibility here. It's just as easy to throw out a scenario where he has all the responsibility. Most likely, it's something in-between. Like I've been saying all along. The events of the day led to a tragedy that nobody wanted to happen. Those agitators are there for one reason. To disrupt ICE's ability to do their job to the point they are not successful. They disrupted the operation to the point that created the situation where someone got killed. It's a terrible tragedy. If they weren't there agitating, that career agitator would be alive today.

TM

Peddy wrote:
Ya, I expect ICE to not use lethal force in a non lethal situation even if someone is a career agitator. Blowing whistles and filming is...

Ya, I expect ICE to not use lethal force in a non lethal situation even if someone is a career agitator. Blowing whistles and filming is a first amendment right. The responsibility here lies solely with ICE.

truck wrote:
There's no right to block traffic, disobey orders to get back during law enforcement operation, or to try to help someone law enforcement is trying to...

There's no right to block traffic, disobey orders to get back during law enforcement operation, or to try to help someone law enforcement is trying to take into custody. 

Who were they trying to take into custody? And even if what you said is all true, that justifies lethal force? It's called you arrest the person. Not kill them.

10
5
vet323
Posts
3611
Joined
7/31/2010
Location
Lead, SD, USA
1/28/2026 7:51am
Peddy wrote:
Ya, I expect ICE to not use lethal force in a non lethal situation even if someone is a career agitator. Blowing whistles and filming is...

Ya, I expect ICE to not use lethal force in a non lethal situation even if someone is a career agitator. Blowing whistles and filming is a first amendment right. The responsibility here lies solely with ICE.

truck wrote:
There's no right to block traffic, disobey orders to get back during law enforcement operation, or to try to help someone law enforcement is trying to...

There's no right to block traffic, disobey orders to get back during law enforcement operation, or to try to help someone law enforcement is trying to take into custody. 

Peddy wrote:
Who were they trying to take into custody? And even if what you said is all true, that justifies lethal force? It's called you arrest the...

Who were they trying to take into custody? And even if what you said is all true, that justifies lethal force? It's called you arrest the person. Not kill them.

Where in this thread has truck justified lethal force? 

2
4
truck
Posts
3894
Joined
6/10/2015
Location
Louisville, KY, USA
Fantasy
1/28/2026 8:02am
That's a lot of words to mentally dance around the fact that he was tackled to the ground before they knew he was carrying a weapon...

That's a lot of words to mentally dance around the fact that he was tackled to the ground before they knew he was carrying a weapon. The weapon was removed. He was still on the ground and it doesn't appear in any videos that they even considered bothering to see if he was lawful in carrying that weapon like you seem so concerned about by stating the apparent carry law for that state. Instead he was fired at and killed while on the ground.

You don't go and harass police/law enforcement. That's asking for trouble. I agree with you above, it's debatable whether he was resisting and tackling him was required in the first place until we get to see the ICE body cameras and what the deceased was filming on his phone.

But the point many of us can't understand is how so many people on here are happy to accept exactly what we saw as okay. Someone gets shots multiple times and killed when they had just been unarmed and hadn't even been able to take their feet.

truck wrote:
At no point have I said any of it was OK. People keep reading things into what I'm saying instead of reading what I'm saying. Once they...

At no point have I said any of it was OK. People keep reading things into what I'm saying instead of reading what I'm saying. 

Once they determined he was interfering there was no possibility for it to be legal carry at that point. A permit wouldn't have changed that. The presence of the gun and the interfering equates to unlawful carry. The lack of a permit just means it was also unlawful carry prior to that. 

APLMAN99 wrote:
truck, you’re mixing 3 different things into one story and trying to call it law.Carry legality, alleged interference, and use of force aren’t the same thing.He...

truck, you’re mixing 3 different things into one story and trying to call it law.

Carry legality, alleged interference, and use of force aren’t the same thing.

He was tackled before they knew he was armed.
The weapon was removed.
He was on the ground.
He wasn’t holding a gun.
He was shot anyway.

So the permit argument is irrelevant to the moment that matters.

Even if he lacked a permit, that’s a licensing issue, not a lethal-force justification.
There’s no doctrine that says interference + firearm = lawful killing.

And saying you’re “not victim-blaming” while listing reasons why the victim caused his own outcome is victim-blaming, just repackaged as 'legal analysis'.

If the shooting was justified, argue the shooting justification.
If it wasn’t, stop laundering it through paperwork, hypotheticals, and retroactive fault finding.

That’s not legal reasoning, it’s narrative cover.

Agree that the permit issue is irrelevant to the things that matter, I only mention it because of the irony in people who insist on nuisance laws like that now pretending like they don't matter. 

My thoughts are he did impede, the degree to which he did so is irrelevant. He did resist, the degree to which he did so is irrelevant. He did have a gun which agents became aware of before shooting him. The initial shot was likely negligent discharge. At this point the standard becomes whether or not the use of force was prompted by a reasonable belief that a threat of harm existed. That belief doesn't have to be correct, only reasonable. The officers firing don't even have to perceive the threat themselves and are allowed to rely on the report of other officers. If you're the agent, your argument is the person disobeyed an order, got between officers and someone they were trying to control, was resisting you, other officers were yelling gun gun gun over and over and a shot was fired. If 1 of 12 find it reasonable to fire at that point, these officers are going to walk. 

I'm not telling you what I think should happen, I have very mixed feelings on it, but I watched this play out over several years in Louisville with somewhat similar circumstances and I think people need to at least try to understand why this might play out in a way that is not satisfying at all. I take no joy in it. 

Fun fact. I worked with Breonna Taylor when she was killed. She was cool, good worker. Her old boyfriend that they were after was a problem and she would have been the first to tell you that. The one that shot at police was not. Nobody in this city cared for two months even though the issues were clear from the start and reported on. 

3
3
truck
Posts
3894
Joined
6/10/2015
Location
Louisville, KY, USA
Fantasy
1/28/2026 8:03am
truck wrote:
There's no right to block traffic, disobey orders to get back during law enforcement operation, or to try to help someone law enforcement is trying to...

There's no right to block traffic, disobey orders to get back during law enforcement operation, or to try to help someone law enforcement is trying to take into custody. 

Peddy wrote:
Who were they trying to take into custody? And even if what you said is all true, that justifies lethal force? It's called you arrest the...

Who were they trying to take into custody? And even if what you said is all true, that justifies lethal force? It's called you arrest the person. Not kill them.

vet323 wrote:

Where in this thread has truck justified lethal force? 

Oops lol.... 

And even still I don't want to go so far as to say I'm justifying it, but I do understand how it might be done!

1
4
SKlein
Posts
1494
Joined
3/25/2014
Location
MN, MN, USA
1/28/2026 8:07am
R66 wrote:
How long until someone asks where you read or heard that? “Source?” seems to be the new “whataboutism” when someone doesn’t like the post. I heard the...

How long until someone asks where you read or heard that? 

“Source?” seems to be the new “whataboutism” when someone doesn’t like the post. I heard the same thing. 

I would actually enjoy learning more about your claims, but I can't do that when you seem to make things up as you please. Oh well, I'll continue to not take your word for it. Stay tuned. Have a great day! Take care!

5
4
Spurdo
Posts
451
Joined
12/26/2016
Location
FI
1/28/2026 8:10am
vet323 wrote:

Where in this thread has truck justified lethal force? 

Your spinning your wheels. The goal posts have been moved so many times in this thread regarding lawful carry, facts have been disregarded, "gut feelings" are assumed truths, and some foreigner quoted Jon Stewart as a news source pages back, not realizing it's satire. These people aren't looking for truth, they are looking for trouble - and when they find it, immediately blame the other side. 

6
7
OldTech
Posts
1331
Joined
1/13/2024
Location
Decatur, AL, USA
1/28/2026 8:11am
mvd61 wrote:

I read that supposedly the Lt. Governor of Mn is in those signal chats too. 

Someone is feeding them license plate reader information too. It definitely seems like state employees are helping 

1
2
1/28/2026 8:22am
TeamGreen wrote:
Just as I said previously…They don’t care about facts, truth or reality.No worries. They’ll never understand that carrying a weapon requires cognizance …as in the sane...

Just as I said previously…

They don’t care about facts, truth or reality.

No worries. They’ll never understand that carrying a weapon requires cognizance …as in the sane capability to know when and where to carry…or…

Not.

This dude engages Federal Law Enforcement Officers and gets taken down…then…returns days later…

ARMED.

As I’ve been saying…the facts don’t matter to those that don’t truly care about reason or reality.

APLMAN99 wrote:
Manny, you’re not analyzing facts, you’re building a narrative that justifies the outcome. ‘Agitating, impeding, assault, resisting, instigating’ are conclusions, not evidence. And since I apparently...

Manny, you’re not analyzing facts, you’re building a narrative that justifies the outcome. ‘Agitating, impeding, assault, resisting, instigating’ are conclusions, not evidence. And since I apparently need to ask again, why was ‘touching LEOs’ on J6 something you have consistently defended, but here you’re comfortable declaring assault and intent from clips and press lines? 

Also, this constant vague ‘they’ you use, who exactly is ‘they’? Because it reads less like analysis and more like a placeholder for whoever you need to blame in the moment.


 

TeamGreen wrote:
He did interfere. That instigated the response. The cause & effect are becoming pretty well defined…About  cause…From the Daily Mail…today: Alex Pretti had been injured in a...

He did interfere. That instigated the response. The cause & effect are becoming pretty well defined…

About  cause…

From the Daily Mail…today: 

Alex Pretti had been injured in a scuffle with federal agents in Minneapolis just one week before he was shot dead, it has emerged.

Pretti, 37, was left with a broken rib after being tackled by a group of officers during a protest against Donald Trump's immigration crackdown, a source told CNN.

The alleged assault occurred after Pretti stopped his car after seeing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers chasing a family on foot, the insider said.

Then, as I’ve refereed to and as we know…

He showed up a week later…ARMED…and interfered PLAIN AS DAY & ON CAMERA…AGAIN…ARMED…

And -AGAIN- he got taken down FOR INTERFERING WTH A FEDERAL ARREST OPERATION…&…on camera…SHOVING A FEDERAL OFFICER…Kev, that’s called “Assaulting an Officer”…just to restate the obvious…

Again…

He does the very same shit…a week later…and now…? He’s got a gun.

Interfering 

Instigating

Taken-down and clearly RESISITING…with a fucking gun…

And it evolves into an absolute clusterfuck. It’s clear, to me, he brought this shit on himself by injecting himself via aggression towards a FEDERAL OFFICER.

All the while, this doesn’t “justify” his death. Never said it. Never implied it. All I’ve ever said is the end result is tragic and fucking sad.

While we’re here, you telling me I’m justifying this man’s death is weak. It earns you a “go fuck yourself” based on basic man law. We’ve been here, before. You still don’t get it. 

Cause & Effect. Period.

Here…

Cause and effect refers to the relationship between an action (the cause) and its result (the effect). It explains how one event leads to another, illustrating the direct consequences of actions or events.

With respect,

Manny 

How do we know he wasnt armed the first time?     And they just missed it.  I know people who live in areas the police are an hour away from if one if the 2 on duty officers are busy and they are always carrying a gun unless they go out of state.  

If he planed on going to the protest and it wasnt a random event like the one reported in that article. It was a bad idea bringing a gun. But other than stepping infront of the peperspray , what did he do that warented the reaction by ICE?  In any other protest in the usa that type of response by the police would never happen.  There are plenty of hours of video of people showing up to protests with guns from protests that police never escalated into a fight. 

Or that its not totally bs like at least half of the statement put out by christy nome? 

Its funny how most of the time people on the right do not trust unnamed sources. I geuss its different when you want to believe what they say. 

 

Its so sad that many of the people defending the actions of the ICE agents on here also thought it was not a justified shooting when that women was shot while breaking down a door to get into the capital on jan 6th.  A clearly violent mob that attacked many police officers with flag poles and other improvised weapons. And yet only 1 person was shot. If you replace the response of capital police with the way ICE reponds I fear it would have been a bloodbath.  

 

And thats the big problem. For me. Its exessive force. It might be technically justifiable.  When is takleing somebody that is blowing a whistle an appropriate response? At that time all it was doing was putting more eyes on the situation by calling attentio  to the chase. 

 

I didnt see him resisting in any footage thats been shown. There is nothing that points towards him ever pulling the gun out.  I hope they can admit this wasnt a totally clean shoot. And that it was not the right way of handling things. 

 

I worry that if not. The next shooting could be some random person in the wrong place at the right time. They are grabbing people from stores while people are shopping. General public. Off streets . These days everybody takes video . If they do not try and cool things off its trending towards less justification for killing somebody. With more made up facts than what is visible when you watch the videos.  

 

The lack of vetting and short training for people who have been in law enforcement could end up filling ICE with the police that have been fired for being some of the bad examples of police officers. And given a short training and set out to go wild. Or people who just want to go out and beat up protesters and immigrants . When they see that they can get away with attaking somebody that blows a whistle . And shooting somebody who is taking video and steps between the ice agent and a protester thats being sprayed with pepper spray. 

 

 They could have avoided all of this by not jumping on Pretti . The women was the aggitater. She wasnt the subject of the operation.  In any other protest situation he walks away alive.  

 

Its sad that the positive things that the MN national guard are doing isnt getting as much attension as they should be. I thought it might have been fake at first since it was so hard to find any coverage of it. I still wonder if it was a fake story that was re reported. 

2
4
R66
Posts
1424
Joined
4/16/2021
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
1/28/2026 8:24am
SKlein wrote:
I would actually enjoy learning more about your claims, but I can't do that when you seem to make things up as you please. Oh well...

I would actually enjoy learning more about your claims, but I can't do that when you seem to make things up as you please. Oh well, I'll continue to not take your word for it. Stay tuned. Have a great day! Take care!

Not surprising that you have not heard what I and others have heard. The main stream media does not report things that do not fit the left wing narrative. Eventually the information will become too much to conceal and even you will hear about it. The lt. governor and others in the MN government have been directly involved in the coordination and direction of the ICE protestors in MN. I guess you heard it here first. Have a great day! Take care!

3
17
Freddy99
Posts
341
Joined
1/31/2014
Location
Wilder, KY, USA
1/28/2026 8:31am
SKlein wrote:
I would actually enjoy learning more about your claims, but I can't do that when you seem to make things up as you please. Oh well...

I would actually enjoy learning more about your claims, but I can't do that when you seem to make things up as you please. Oh well, I'll continue to not take your word for it. Stay tuned. Have a great day! Take care!

R66 wrote:
Not surprising that you have not heard what I and others have heard. The main stream media does not report things that do not fit the...

Not surprising that you have not heard what I and others have heard. The main stream media does not report things that do not fit the left wing narrative. Eventually the information will become too much to conceal and even you will hear about it. The lt. governor and others in the MN government have been directly involved in the coordination and direction of the ICE protestors in MN. I guess you heard it here first. Have a great day! Take care!

Any media you consume is the "main stream media"

Hth

2
3
Freddy99
Posts
341
Joined
1/31/2014
Location
Wilder, KY, USA
1/28/2026 8:34am

hey look, some mainstream media reporting i agree with

 

image 2539.png?VersionId=xcuZXPDIEmHFUZ
3
6
Freddy99
Posts
341
Joined
1/31/2014
Location
Wilder, KY, USA
1/28/2026 8:37am Edited Date/Time 1/28/2026 8:39am
ToolMaker wrote:
So if it's OK to throw water bottles and sandwiches at ICE agents, should the agitator that sprayed piss (just my guess what the liquid was)...

So if it's OK to throw water bottles and sandwiches at ICE agents, should the agitator that sprayed piss (just my guess what the liquid was) on Ilhan Omar be set free? He did it peacefully, was backing away after so he posed no danger (per the lefty description of danger level). I say lock his ass up. Will the lefties be consistent and say what he did was OK, just peaceful protest?

TM

why do you think trump would assume that someone could stoop so low as to stage an attack on themselves? odd

and yes, trying to help another citizen that was pushed to the ground by a paid agitator is obviously comparable to spraying an elected official with an unknown substance at a town hell.  i can see how you drew that parallel!  good job buddy. 

image 2540

 

1
4
cslacker
Posts
390
Joined
6/6/2014
Location
Glendale, AZ, USA
1/28/2026 8:42am
truck wrote:
Even if ICE was 100% in the wrong and roughed him up for doing totally legitimate things on the first encounter, what would that say about...

Even if ICE was 100% in the wrong and roughed him up for doing totally legitimate things on the first encounter, what would that say about his mindset if he came back for more a week later but this time brought his "combat" pistol with him? 

How this guy ended up being a victim here isn't nearly as complicated or random as some are wanting it to be. 

Peddy wrote:
He has a conceal carry permit. It's the 2nd amendment. It isn't illegal. And, how do we know he didn't have his pistol during the first...

He has a conceal carry permit. It's the 2nd amendment. It isn't illegal. And, how do we know he didn't have his pistol during the first encounter?

truck wrote:
It became illegal the instant he interfered, resisted, blocked traffic, showed up without his permit, etc. He wasn't carrying legally when he was shot. He just...

It became illegal the instant he interfered, resisted, blocked traffic, showed up without his permit, etc. He wasn't carrying legally when he was shot. He just wasn't. Sorry, those are the laws the libs wanted, I didn't come up with them. 

2A absolutist here, sorry, you don't get to claim it now when it's convenient after you put all these shit laws into place. If you'd like to do away with all of these 2A qualifiers, I'm here for it! 

Full transparency, I carry illegally all the time. Calculated risk. If you don't have metal detectors...... However unlike Pretti, that means I sprint in the opposite direction of conflict, I don't walk into it. You'll never know it's there unless I have to use it. 

I keep hearing that he was carrying illegally by the usual suspects.  In what way was he carrying illegally?  The only possible, legitimate answer anyone has given is that he did not have an ID on him.  Which the only source for that information is a known liar in Noem.  I never saw an officer ask him for his ID prior to the shooting.  And even if he did not have it on him it is punishable by a $25 fine, not really a capital crime.  Further, they wouldn't have known the ID status until well after his heart stopped beating if it is even true.    Clarifying Minnesota’s permit to carry law following comments by federal officials

3
1
Peddy
Posts
136
Joined
9/27/2016
Location
Upland, CA, USA
1/28/2026 8:44am
truck wrote:
There's no right to block traffic, disobey orders to get back during law enforcement operation, or to try to help someone law enforcement is trying to...

There's no right to block traffic, disobey orders to get back during law enforcement operation, or to try to help someone law enforcement is trying to take into custody. 

Peddy wrote:
Who were they trying to take into custody? And even if what you said is all true, that justifies lethal force? It's called you arrest the...

Who were they trying to take into custody? And even if what you said is all true, that justifies lethal force? It's called you arrest the person. Not kill them.

vet323 wrote:

Where in this thread has truck justified lethal force? 

Then no idea what he is arguing for.

4
APLMAN99
Posts
12735
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR, USA
Fantasy
1/28/2026 8:58am
TeamGreen wrote:
Just as I said previously…They don’t care about facts, truth or reality.No worries. They’ll never understand that carrying a weapon requires cognizance …as in the sane...

Just as I said previously…

They don’t care about facts, truth or reality.

No worries. They’ll never understand that carrying a weapon requires cognizance …as in the sane capability to know when and where to carry…or…

Not.

This dude engages Federal Law Enforcement Officers and gets taken down…then…returns days later…

ARMED.

As I’ve been saying…the facts don’t matter to those that don’t truly care about reason or reality.

APLMAN99 wrote:
Manny, you’re not analyzing facts, you’re building a narrative that justifies the outcome. ‘Agitating, impeding, assault, resisting, instigating’ are conclusions, not evidence. And since I apparently...

Manny, you’re not analyzing facts, you’re building a narrative that justifies the outcome. ‘Agitating, impeding, assault, resisting, instigating’ are conclusions, not evidence. And since I apparently need to ask again, why was ‘touching LEOs’ on J6 something you have consistently defended, but here you’re comfortable declaring assault and intent from clips and press lines? 

Also, this constant vague ‘they’ you use, who exactly is ‘they’? Because it reads less like analysis and more like a placeholder for whoever you need to blame in the moment.


 

TeamGreen wrote:
He did interfere. That instigated the response. The cause & effect are becoming pretty well defined…About  cause…From the Daily Mail…today: Alex Pretti had been injured in a...

He did interfere. That instigated the response. The cause & effect are becoming pretty well defined…

About  cause…

From the Daily Mail…today: 

Alex Pretti had been injured in a scuffle with federal agents in Minneapolis just one week before he was shot dead, it has emerged.

Pretti, 37, was left with a broken rib after being tackled by a group of officers during a protest against Donald Trump's immigration crackdown, a source told CNN.

The alleged assault occurred after Pretti stopped his car after seeing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers chasing a family on foot, the insider said.

Then, as I’ve refereed to and as we know…

He showed up a week later…ARMED…and interfered PLAIN AS DAY & ON CAMERA…AGAIN…ARMED…

And -AGAIN- he got taken down FOR INTERFERING WTH A FEDERAL ARREST OPERATION…&…on camera…SHOVING A FEDERAL OFFICER…Kev, that’s called “Assaulting an Officer”…just to restate the obvious…

Again…

He does the very same shit…a week later…and now…? He’s got a gun.

Interfering 

Instigating

Taken-down and clearly RESISITING…with a fucking gun…

And it evolves into an absolute clusterfuck. It’s clear, to me, he brought this shit on himself by injecting himself via aggression towards a FEDERAL OFFICER.

All the while, this doesn’t “justify” his death. Never said it. Never implied it. All I’ve ever said is the end result is tragic and fucking sad.

While we’re here, you telling me I’m justifying this man’s death is weak. It earns you a “go fuck yourself” based on basic man law. We’ve been here, before. You still don’t get it. 

Cause & Effect. Period.

Here…

Cause and effect refers to the relationship between an action (the cause) and its result (the effect). It explains how one event leads to another, illustrating the direct consequences of actions or events.

With respect,

Manny 

Manny, this “cause & effect” sermon would land a lot better if you applied it consistently. 

On J6, people touching, pushing, and obstructing LEOs suddenly deserved 'nuance', 'context', and a lot of justifying the actions of the folks who were actually assaulting officers.  Here, you’re instantly comfortable declaring assault, intent, resistance, and causality as settled facts, no nuance, no restraint, no skepticism. Same behavior, different politics, different standards. That’s not principle, that’s selective framing dressed up as 'reason'.

And you don't have to add a faux 'with respect'.  You've made it clear with your claim of my 'dishonesty' that you have no respect for me, so why would you even try to pretend that? 

8
4

Post a reply to: Not sure why the Minnesota Ice and Run thread got locked by the originator but.....

The Latest