80 oh so they aren't storming hotels, vandalizing cars, throwing ice and rocks at agents, they aren't approaching them aggressively while they are trying to do their jobs? They don't surround them and other wise block them so they can't work? They don't interfere with their operations by warning their targets? They don't ram their cars? They don't DOXX the agents to terrorize their families?

You really don't watch the news.

78 again with the disingenuous. Correlating disparate thoughts together like it's a smug point is stupid. I never said that and you know it.

The reality is, if the citizens didn't interfere violently like they have been for MONTHS, no violence would be occurring. Their inability to let ice just do its job in peace is directly responsible for the violence.

70 you must really hate the news. The list is LONG of the violent interference.

And they started it

They should peacefully assemble on sidewalks well away from the agents while conducting their operations. That's what then constitution allows for. Not this horrific war being waged against ice for doing their job.

That doesn't matter. The law doesn't say only people with an arrest record. It says anyone here illegally is subject to arrest and being brought before an immigration judge.

All of the 9/11 hijackers were visa overstays and here illegally. They had no criminal record. You don't want people like that picked up?

65: no and you know it. A defective gun fired in its own. And caused agents to think they were under fire. Perhaps if the disarming agent had announced it, they would have paused and been better identifying their threat.

But you already knew that. You like intentionally distorting facts to make it appear better for you like it's some kind of brave and smug point.

Ice is there to detain people in the country illegally. If the citizens didn't violently interfere with their operations and allowed them to conduct their lawful arrests, There would be zero violence. All of this stems from a population unable to look beyond the politics of thePresident liking the agency. It's immaterial. Their job is legitimate and necessary. Their arrests lawful. If they let them do the job the country hired them to do, this operation would likely be over by now and there would very likely be two less deaths.

There is nothing inherently wrong or evil about the mission to find people here illegally and take them before an immigration judge. That's all they do. There are two notable exceptions: 1) if someone voluntarily leaves in lieu of seeing a judge and 2) if they already have a final order of deportation from getting denied by two judges.

30 years here and no criminal record? Great. Go see an immigration judge and get legal status.

The most heinous culprit here is sanctuary cities and states. If they would honor ice detainers and allow them to pick up aliens convicted of crimes before they are released into the community, ice wouldn't have to go find them.

57. Oh. So I guess you're just going to refuse to watch the video attached to this article. Fair enough.

You will do or say anything to avoid the fact that there was an AD and it very likely contributed to the shooting.

Just because you want it to be worse than the facts say it is.

Quit trying to deflect to other things. I'm not going to run around with you while you carry these goal posts around.

The facts are what they are. It's okay. I admit they are at fault ... it shouldn't affect you this much that it is not as malicious as you want it to be.

Facts matter. To deny there was an accidental discharge at this point is insane. It's just straight denial of reality

To deny that the sig 320 is a totally flawed design that has a long and well documented history of spontaneously firing without the trigger being touched is also insane.

It's okay if your cute little narrative you constructed of the evil assassins twirling their snidely whiplash mustaches and looking for reasons to kill people is proved wrong. But you should be man enough to admit it.

Which is good for you, yes? That means more ice agents for you to hate and blame!

That's not what a spontaneous or accidental discharge means. The gin fired on its own as it's prone to do which caused the agents to believe they were under fire.

That doesn't excuse them not being sure of their threat but it makes it a whole lot less malicious. It also shifts some blame from the shooters to the disarming agent and to sig.

If you watch the video attached to this article you might learn something. Like seeing and hearing the gun fire right when it's removed.

I know that we'll be inconvenient for your hatred. The good news for your hatred is he should still be sure of his threat and clearly was not.

28. True. The guns rep for ADs is so bad. Is davi famous for them

Except that isn't when he started shooting. He shout after the spontaneous discharge. Why lie about it?

What are you talking about? Wrestling with a subject ... Right or wrong at the moment is immaterial. You see a gun yell it out, and suddenly a shot is fired ... . And now you think you or your partners are taking fire.

This is just one of a ton of videos about the 320 and its known problems with spontaneous discharges.

17. You can clearly see it in the video. As he turns the slide rocks back his arm goes up from the recoil and his head instinctively ducks. It happened.

That Sig 320 is a dangerous piece of crap.

It's going to come down to the investigation. Dod the agent that shot actually see he had been disarmed? Was there a spontaneous discharge by a gun known to be prone to them and then cause the agent to think he or his partners were under fire from Pretti?

It's a lot of sticky questions and I look forward to the answers.

It certainly doesn't look good for the shooting agent at all. Difficult to legally justify. But man the agent that disarmed him should have yelled "gun secure!" It's just as important to announce that as it is to tell everyone there is a gun.

100% there was a spontaneous discharge.

Normally I use negligent discharge, but Pretti was carrying an Sig 320. The gun with a notorious reputation with many videos showing the gun spontaneously discharging in holsters with hands nowhere near it.

A gun with such a bad reputation for going off without the trigger being pulled most ranges won't allow them in the building. Dozens of departments that spent millions purchasing them and training their officers to use them, have just stopped using them and are spending millions more to outfit their departments with Glocks.

This in no way excuses the shooting, you should always be sure of your threat. But it goes a long way in explaining what happened and why.

Sig is culpable for producing a terrible and dangerous product and denying there is a problem at every turn.

But I think the one with the most culpability is the agent who disarmed Pretti and failed to announce it LOUDLY that he had done so.

True. Some of it will need official confirmation. Especially what the agent knew and didn't know at the time he pulled the trigger. Though I trust the Minneapolis PD about as much as I trust the doj. So we'll see.

And also why I think the disarming agent is so culpable in the situation. If he had yelled the gun was secured, even given the spontaneous discharge by the weapon he may still be alive because the agent may have paused to identify the source of the shot.

Appreciate? I've already said I I don't believe it's justified.

But the spontaneous discharge is very material.

Think of it this way: an intruder breaks into your home and you get in a fight with him even though you have a gun. You see he has a gun on his hip and yell about it. Your wife comes in and pulls it out of his waist band, doesn't tell you, and you don't see it while you are still rolling around with him. You step back with your gun pointed at him ... laser focused your attention on him ... and your wife has an accidental discharge 1 second after you seeing the gun so all you hear is a gun shot.

I guarantee you shoot him and wouldn't think twice. I guarantee you would think he was shooting at you.

That doesn't justify it, he certainly should identify his threat before shooting. But it goes a long way to explain what happened and why it happened.

Fair enough. I should have qualified that with "if reports are true."

Oh I didn't say that. I only refuted the point trying to be made that he would have helped an injured agent. I have no issue with a properly credentialed concealed holder carrying. He WAS outside the law since he wasn't carrying his id or the permit as required by Minnesota law, but that's an admin problem not germane to the shooting.

When I carry concealed, the first thing I do in EVERY interaction with law enforcement is make sure they know I am armed, where it is, and don't put my hands near it.

If he had wanted to help, he would have carried a med bag and not a gun. Come on.