Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The New York Times and USA Today have each published detailed analyses of the timeline of the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by ICE agents in Minneapolis.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/01/24/us/minneapolis-shooting-alex-pretti-timeline.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20260125&instance_id=170082&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=59209117&segment_id=214283&user_id=86ac9094018f7140c62a54a4e93c075f

https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2026/01/24/minneapolis-shooting-video-analysis-alex-pretti/88338183007/?utm_source=usat-DailyBriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-briefing&utm_term=hero&utm_content=8872UT-E-NLETTER02

Under Minnesota law, this was cold blooded, premeditated murder in the first degree. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.185

[bloocow2]

Curious to see what the defence will be on this one.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Negligence on part of the RN in having a round chambered.

[David Nieporent]

That is something you made up and also not a defense.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Throw an accidental discharge and IQ above 12 and you’ll see the problem with your asinine beliefs

[Baseballhead]

It's always some variation of "if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that skirt."

[bloocow2]

Ahhhhh, so he was carrying a gun on his person. Which they took off him, and then shot him 10 times just to make sure. Seems reasonable.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It very much is if his gun went bang as they were taking possession of it.

The first shot a 10th of a second after they took possession of the gun absolutely is consistent with an accidental discharge. A fuselage of shots after a brief pause absolutely is consistent with another officer responding to his training and believing that it was the purpose who fired.

This is like the distinction between the brakes failing on a police car and a police officer deliberately running over a child. Both are tragic, but there’s a hell of a lot of difference between the two!

And while anything is theoretically possible, it’s damn hard for an accidental discharge to happen if you haven’t already chambered a round. For those not familiar with guns, you have bullets in the clip, but to fire the gun you have to manually move one from there into the gun itself before it will fire, and most people don’t go around with round chamber. It’s just asking for trouble.

[Baseballhead]

"It very much is if his gun went bang as they were taking possession of it."

Why were they taking possession of it? He had a license to carry, and he didn't draw his weapon. They took it from him, it went off in their hands, and then they shot him because...?

"It’s just asking for trouble." == "She was asking for it." You just can't help but talk like a rapist. Birds of a feather, I guess.

[bloocow2]

Perhaps his gun didn't go bang. Perhaps they made it go bang to give them an excuse to shoot the guy multiple times. Or perhaps it was an accident.

Sure seems like the sort of thing that people might want to investigate, huh? Wonder if that will happen.

[David Nieporent]

fuselage of shots

As numerous people have pointed out to you, airplanes have nothing to do with the discussion. The word you are looking for is fusillade.

[Commenter_XY]

More like, why on earth are you bringing a concealed, loaded weapon where LEOs are performing their job duties. That is just plain stupid.

And btw, just who is Pretti 'protecting'? Yeah, some scumbag illegal alien with a rap sheet. How moral is that?

We already know how stupid it is.

[not guilty]

"More like, why on earth are you bringing a concealed, loaded weapon where LEOs are performing their job duties. That is just plain stupid.?

How does blaming the victim there mitigate the ICE officers' guilt?

Alex Pretti was where he had a right to be, bearing an open carry weapon pursuant to a carry permit (which he never attempted to use).

Have you parsed the relevant Minnesota statutes, XY?

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.18

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.066

There is no defense here.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, not to puncture your balloon, but are you as sure of this as you were of Trump v Anderson?

There is no case for 1st degree murder to be brought. What we have here is very bad judgment by Pretti (who paid the price for his stupidity). It is a fatal misjudgment to impede, obstruct or threaten an LEO performing their job duties.

Put another way: Play stupid games, and win the Darwin Award.

[not guilty]

My predictions as to Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024), were based on then-existing law, before Chief Justice Whoreberts and his fellow black robed wardheelers changed the rules of the game.

[not guilty]

Premeditated murder is a common law offense, and in the United States, is traditionally an exercise of the states' police power. Minnesota Statutes § 609.185 provides in relevant part:

MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.
(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life:

(1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another;</blockquote

Minnesota Statutes § 609.18 provides that "For the purposes of sections 609.185, 609.19, 609.2661, and 609.2662, 'premeditation' means to consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit, the act referred to prior to its commission."

State v. Flores, 418 N.W.2d 150 (1988), construed the premeditation requirement. The Court there emphasized that premeditation involves any level of planning or consideration, even if momentary. The instruction that premeditation can be "formed at any time, moment or instant before the killing" was deemed consistent with established law, negating Flores' argument that the instruction was misleading or incorrect -- reinforcing that premeditation can be inferred from actions that demonstrate any level of planning, even if brief, thereby broadening the scope for prosecutorial arguments in murder cases. https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/state-v.-ramon-flores:-clarifying-premeditation-and-intoxication-defenses-in-first-degree-murder/view

The interim between the time that Mr. Pretti was disarmed, while he was lying prone on the sidewalk, and the firing of the fatal shots provided ample time for the ICE officers to form a premeditated design to shoot him to death.

Minnesota Statutes § 609.066 defines the circumstances under which a peace officer is authorized to use deadly force. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.066 Per subdivision 1, "The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force."

Subdivision 2 states:

Use of deadly force. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:

(1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:

(i) can be articulated with specificity;

(ii) is reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer; and

(iii) must be addressed through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay; or

(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony and the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm to another person under the threat criteria in clause (1), items (i) to (iii), unless immediately apprehended.

(b) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger the person poses to self if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that the person does not pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to the peace officer or to another under the threat criteria in paragraph (a), clause (1), items (i) to (iii).

When Mr. Pretti was shot to death while lying prone on the sidewalk, he presented a present threat to absolutely no one.

IOW, XY, your ipse dixit assertion that "There is no case for 1st degree murder to be brought" means jack shit. Statutes matter. You should be ashamed of your MAGA influenced bloodlust.

[not guilty]

My edit fouled up the formatting. The correct formatting there should be:

Premeditated murder is a common law offense, and in the United States, is traditionally an exercise of the states' police power. Minnesota Statutes § 609.185 provides in relevant part:

MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE
(a) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of murder in the first degree and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life:

(1) causes the death of a human being with premeditation and with intent to effect the death of the person or of another;

Minnesota Statutes § 609.18 provides that "For the purposes of sections 609.185, 609.19, 609.2661, and 609.2662, 'premeditation' means to consider, plan or prepare for, or determine to commit, the act referred to prior to its commission."

State v. Flores, 418 N.W.2d 150 (1988), construed the premeditation requirement. The Court there emphasized that premeditation involves any level of planning or consideration, even if momentary. The instruction that premeditation can be "formed at any time, moment or instant before the killing" was deemed consistent with established law, negating Flores' argument that the instruction was misleading or incorrect -- reinforcing that premeditation can be inferred from actions that demonstrate any level of planning, even if brief, thereby broadening the scope for prosecutorial arguments in murder cases. https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/state-v.-ramon-flores:-clarifying-premeditation-and-intoxication-defenses-in-first-degree-murder/view

The interim between the time that Mr. Pretti was disarmed, while he was lying prone on the sidewalk, and the firing of the fatal shots provided ample time for the ICE officers to form a premeditated design to shoot him to death.

Minnesota Statutes § 609.066 defines the circumstances under which a peace officer is authorized to use deadly force. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.066 Per subdivision 1, "The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force."

Subdivision 2 states:

Use of deadly force. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:

(1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:

(i) can be articulated with specificity;

(ii) is reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer; and

(iii) must be addressed through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay; or

(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony and the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm to another person under the threat criteria in clause (1), items (i) to (iii), unless immediately apprehended.

(b) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger the person poses to self if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that the person does not pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to the peace officer or to another under the threat criteria in paragraph (a), clause (1), items (i) to (iii).

When Mr. Pretti was shot to death while lying prone on the sidewalk, he presented a present threat to absolutely no one.

IOW, XY, your ipse dixit assertion that "There is no case for 1st degree murder to be brought" means jack shit. Statutes matter. You should be ashamed of your MAGA influenced bloodlust.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It has been stated that the particular model handgun that the perp had his particularly notorious for accidental discharges. In English, that means going bang without the person holding it, intending it to do so it’s been stated that there have been over 100 lawsuits filed against the manufacturer for accidental discharges with this particular model.

I am not an attorney. I’m not gonna pretend to try to verify this, but any honest attorney with who is familiar with litigation of this sort and has access to Lexus probably could do so quite easily.

Unless you believe that ice is gonna murder of white American in broad daylight in front the hundreds of witnesses, and knowing how much video camera is gonna be, an accidental discharge when they took possession of the perps gun is the best explanation for what happened. I have been suggesting this since Saturday as a possibility, and it is really the only consistent explanation other than a deliberate murder.

Actually, it makes more sense to deliver murder in terms of the timing of the shots. The first shot a 10th of a second after the iceman took possession of the gun is consistent with an accidental discharge the brief pause, and then a rapid succession of shots is consistent with a different officer hearing the discharge and thinking that the person had shot at him, and shooting back is what the training is to do.

The only other possibility is deliberate, murder, and after the experience of all the video from the shooting two weeks ago, the ice guys would have to be living in a cave to not know that there were people with cameras, recording their every move. If they wouldn’t murder someone, they sure as hell wouldn’t do it in broad daylight, in front of everybody.

If they wanted to murder someone, then arrest the person and then murder and do the murder someplace where there are no witnesses. Not in front of all the protesters…..

[Dr. Ed 2]

This is all in addition to the fact, he should not have had a gun on him while committing crimes.

[not guilty]

What crime do you posit that Mr. Pretti was committing, Dr. Ed. 2?