Hilarious, just because a guy with a gun dies the NRA is attacking the government.

Nothing will come of this, nothing about what the government did infringed on his 2A rights.

He didn't brandish the weapon, but he did conceal and bring one, causing more risk to him and community. As every good anti-2A person (like myself) knows heightens the risk and the intensity of the encounter. There are even ADs in Santa Clara on how to ask your neighbors if they have weapons on the premises. Why?

Because guns are ------- dangerous.

Lumpers cheering the NRA's stance really show they don't care about guns, they just hate Trump and/or Republicans, anything to own the CONS.

If you really cared you'd argue SEE this is what guns in the hands of the public creates and we should ban weapons in public spaces.

Gun owners: watch the video of those ICE raids. That could happen at your house, and sooner than you think. Your possession of a firearm makes you a threat to a tyrant...

#3 | POSTED BY CATDOG

Ridiculous, they didn't kill him just because he had a gun. They killed him because he had a gun and was irresponsible in its use.

There are MN laws about duty to inform if you interact with LEO's Also every CCW class teaches that interacting with law enforcement is a situation that can go south quickly when carrying out in public. The CCW --------- inform the officer of possession, and turn over the weapon if instructed.

Guns are dangerous to be around, dangerous to own, and should be handled with respect. Pretti didn't take his responsibility seriously.

#6 | POSTED BY A_FRIEND
#4 | POSTED BY A_FRIEND

Hows that medication working? Do you need to see your Dr weekly? You might look into that.

I am not a gun owner, and generally am opposed to gun ownership, but...

The fuss about the victim being armed while on the streets appears to me to be the first step in the confiscation of firearms in private hands.

It wasn't that he was armed on the streets, this is such an equivocation, omitting facts to conform to a narrative, it's that he was irresponsible.

He obstructed an officer of the law without saying he was armed, with a concealed weapon. The subduing of Pretti was going as many of these interaction do, him struggling and resisting. Officers then discovered the concealed weapon, yelled "GUN", removed it from the struggle. Were there more weapons? Who knew at that time? Only Pretti knew. Until Pretti is subdued and searched only can they then declare "CLEAR".

Then things get strange, either the weapon accidentally discharged (twitchy trigger on SIG pistols) as the officer was walking away with the weapon or when Pretti in his struggle, got on his knee and reached to his back where the weapon was previously holstered was then shot (famous photo TruthNLies posted). The officers reacted, knowing the suspect had/has a gun.

The investigation will determine the timing of the events, I believe when he reached to his back hip, the first shot had just rung out, but the videos/audio are too jumpy to make a solid determination. Ergo IMO the weapon had an accidental discharge, and the other officers reacted to the sound (first shot, then tiny pause, then multiple shots are fired).

Tragic, all because a person brought a concealed weapon to a protest, which is his right, but doesn't absolve someone from being irresponsible.

Was that weapon on him when he was shot?
- MB

No, but when he touched to officer in MN he has a duty to inform.

Did he threaten the Police with it?
- MB

Doesn't matter, commiting a felony, the push of the officer, while armed overrides 2A rights. It's a very serious matter.

Including the Police?
- MB

Including the police, but no one has pointed to police irresponsibility given the situation.

Sure we can speculate afterwards he was unarmed, but at the time the officers had no idea if he was completely disarmed.

Bull shit. They took his gun away.
#24 | Posted by Alexandrite

Reading is fundamental.

They took the concealed gun away, but haven't ascertained if he had other weapons.

There are images of him before being shot and after disarmed reaching back to where the weapon was holstered. Only Pretti knew there were no other weapons.

#38 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

This is good news.

But unless the Police thought he was wearing a suicide vest, they don't have much of an argument for shooting him.

Incorrect....

As I have stated, they didn't know if he had another weapon. Some officers might not even know the weapon was removed, only heard "GUN". He wasn't face down when the shooting occurred, he was on one knee reaching back to where the weapon was previously located..

Now LE aren't in a hivemind despite your desire that they are, they all didn't know he was disarmed, and his reaching back towards the location of his weapon (which was removed) concerned the officers. It was about this time the first shot rang out.

Being an officer in that position, someone assumed Pretti fired the first round (sight pause inbetween first shot and barrage), and the firing on him began.

As I stated if could be AD or ND, but the officers with all the noise (whistles etc) aren't sure.

Now we can all Monday morning quarterback.

But in the moment, which the only thing that matters, the officers didn't behave irresponsibly given the data they had at the time.

They didn't execute him, or drag him out of a house and just shoot him in the streets as Eberly implies with his Gestapo reference.

Sure you can hang people if you're the type that likes to tear down statues, and pay reparations for historical correctness. But in the real world, things like this happen because people have a legitimate fear for their lives. Calling someone irresponsible, for fearing for their lives, and behaving with in the constructs of the law is absurd.

#43 | POSTED BY CORKY

Without an argument this is all Corky can add to a discussion.