FAFO: Minneapolis shooting: Man shot by federal agents has died

[1032004]

53 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

Unfortunately, we aren't talking about him. Why did this individual have 2 full clips of ammo on him.

I don’t see why it matters as he never tried to use his gun.  Are you against the second amendment?

Edited January 25 by 1032004

[1032004]

33 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

You're blind if you can't see the difference between these two shootings. It's so intellectually dishonest you embarrassed to make the point.

Oh I see the difference.  Babbitt was leading an angry mob of rioters actively breaking into the Capitol.   Pretti was standing in public and videotaping

Edited January 25 by 1032004

[Caveira]

1 hour ago, 1032004 said:

Kyle Rittenhouse had the same amount of ammo that Pretti did.

Kyle didn’t attack anyone.   He was attacked by the leftist mob …  

[JimmySpeaks]

39 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Don't forget Furry.

Oooops sorry yes Furry too.  Sidkness 

[reversaloffortune]

None of you that are justifying a man shot in the back after already being disarmed are good people.  Not a single one.

[El Luchador]

9 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Oh I see the difference.  Babbitt was leading an angry mob of rioters actively breaking into the Capitol.   Pretti was standing in public and videotaping

Risk of eminent death or great bodily harm. That's the difference. You want to address the situation based on how you feel about one or the other. But it's facts that the law cares about.

[El Luchador]

1 minute ago, reversaloffortune said:

None of you that are justifying a man shot in the back after already being disarmed are good people.  Not a single one.

Well I wish he wasn't shot but the dumb bastard put the quarter in the jukebox and that was the dance. If you want to push the law to the limit don't be surprised if you find yourself over the line. When you're over the line there are consequences. Nothing about what happened to this man was a result of anything other than his own actions. 

[Caveira]

14 minutes ago, reversaloffortune said:

None of you that are justifying a man shot in the back after already being disarmed are good people.  Not a single one.

There is no way you can see into that melee well enough to know or not know if he tried to reach for that gun.   

[El Luchador]

1 minute ago, Caveira said:

There is no way you can see into that melee well enough to know or not know if he tried to reach for that gun.   

He doesn't have to reach for it, only needs reasonably to think he was. When you fight the cops you go down a dangerous path. When you are armed in a physical confrontation with law enforcement the assumptions they make are not to give you the benefit of the doubt. Hindsight means nothing. 

[1032004]

18 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Risk of eminent death or great bodily harm. That's the difference. You want to address the situation based on how you feel about one or the other. But it's facts that the law cares about.

So you think the killings of both Babbitt and Pretti were justified, correct?   Because of course the fact is that no one was charged for killing Babbitt. 

[1032004]

26 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Kyle didn’t attack anyone.   He was attacked by the leftist mob …  

And Pretti didn’t attack anyone until they attacked a woman.

[El Luchador]

Just now, 1032004 said:

So you think the killings of both Babbitt and Pretti were justified, correct?   Because of course the fact is that no one was charged for killing Babbitt. 

Yes. I have never defended her, she was a bigger idiot than the 2 shot in Minnesota. Although if he had been charged it would have been reasonable too. He had time to react and he wasn't in eminent danger. 

[1032004]

Just now, El Luchador said:

Yes. I have never defended her, she was a bigger idiot than the 2 shot in Minnesota. Although if he had been charged it would have been reasonable too. He had time to react and he wasn't in eminent danger. 

So you think an angry mob of rioters breaking windows is less dangerous than a guy recording with his phone, got it 

[El Luchador]

1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

And Pretti didn’t attack anyone until they attacked a woman.

You don't know that and it isn't relevant. Once he interferes he is committing a felony. 

[1032004]

2 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

You don't know that and it isn't relevant. Once he interferes he is committing a felony. 

Not if what they did to the woman was unlawful (and I’m not saying definitively that it was, we don’t know)

[El Luchador]

Just now, 1032004 said:

So you think an angry mob of rioters breaking windows is less dangerous than a guy recording with his phone, got it 

Once you add a firearm into your crime the answer is clearly yes. His situation had nothing to do with filming. That is dishonest. It is a lie. When you rely on lies you show how weak your position is. 

[El Luchador]

Just now, 1032004 said:

Not if what they did to the woman was unlawful (and I’m not saying definitively that it was, we don’t know)

You don't settle those things with violence in the moment. Get a lawyer. Even if that was the case his violence is still a crime, and he was an armed criminal illegally carrying.

[Caveira]

5 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

So you think an angry mob of rioters breaking windows is less dangerous than a guy recording with his phone, got it 

He clearly  was pausing his video taping to fight with police.  

[1032004]

1 minute ago, El Luchador said:

You don't settle those things with violence in the moment. Get a lawyer. Even if that was the case his violence is still a crime, and he was an armed criminal illegally carrying.

We don’t know if he was illegally carrying. 

[Caveira]

10 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

And Pretti didn’t attack anyone until they attacked a woman.

Pushing agitators and rioters out of the way isn’t an attack.   
 

that dude also has zero business interfering with ice moving rioters out of the way 

[El Luchador]

1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

We don’t know if he was illegally carrying. 

Yes we do. There is no scenario where you can possess a firearm in the commission of a crime, and he did not have ID on him which makes the possession illegal even if he has a permit.

[1032004]

1 minute ago, El Luchador said:

Yes we do. There is no scenario where you can possess a firearm in the commission of a crime, and he did not have ID on him which makes the possession illegal even if he has a permit.

We don’t know if he didn’t have ID on him.  That just comes from a DHS statement but they have been confirmed to have been caught lying on numerous occasions including about Pretti

Edited January 25 by 1032004

[Caveira]

Saw something where his parents were begging him not to riot with a gun.   But he did anyway.   That’s an interesting story….
 

Speaks to his thought process on this 

Edited January 25 by Caveira

[1032004]

5 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Pushing agitators and rioters out of the way isn’t an attack.   
 

 

It is if they were not doing anything illegal, and we don’t know if they were

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, 1032004 said:

It is if they were not doing anything illegal, and we don’t know if they were

Is it illegal to conceal carry without an ID?