The shooting of Alex Pretti

Mostly agree with everything you’ve had to say. I will just point out a few things about the Rittenhouse example. Unlike Pretti, he carried an AK style rifle around his chest while Pretti’s was either mostly or entirely concealed. Also the state line thing is relevant, not because crossing some imaginary line matters but to emphasize the fact that he traveled a long distance to engage in these protests. The point to all this being that in his example, his behavior signaled a much greater interest in being directly involved in the confrontation even when it wasn’t his neighborhood. In other words, he went to the fight, it didn’t come to him.

I think these distinctions matter because it makes the hypocrisy and absurdity all the more clear. If you believe bringing a gun to a protest warrants your death, then Rittenhouse would be a villain, but he isn’t, because they don’t really believe that. This is what being in a cult looks like, follow the leader until you’re all falling off the cliff. Reality be dammed. Logic and reason be dammed. Fundamental values be dammed. All that matters is the jersey.

he carried an AK style rifle around his chest

His stated goal was to deter crime, so showing a weapon is the most effective way to deter a confrontation without having to fire a bullet. After the fact we know what happened, but before he was attacked, I think it would be reasonable that carrying a large gun should make people less likely to attack you.

to emphasize the fact that he traveled a long distance to engage in these protests...he went to the fight, it didn’t come to him.

Sure, it means he was motivated. But not sure why it signals an interest in "wanting to be involved in a confrontation" as opposed to "wanting to deter destruction of property, clean graffiti, and provide medical aid." If he'd shot some people for shoplifting, we'd be having a very different conversation, but I don't see any indication of him wanting to shoot anyone until he personally was attacked. I also don't think you can blame someone for a fight they didn't instigate just because they went somewhere a fight might happen and someone else attacked them. Rittenhouse putting himself in danger with apparently good intentions might have been unwise, but if anything it was altruistic, and we also have the benefit of hindsight to know that he would be attacked.

his behavior signaled a much greater interest in being directly involved in the confrontation

Maybe to the extent that Pretti showed even less interest in a confrontation, but I don't think either of them was responsible for being attacked or behaved immorally leading to the confrontations. The comparison is relevant in that, insofar as there are differences between Pretti and Rittenhouse, I don't think those differences are big enough to make either of them the aggressor.

My biggest irritation is how soon after Renee Nicole's death, Alex Pretti's death occurred.

Obviously either death is bad anytime.

Neither shooting seemed to me justified.

I am unsure why I do not 'care so much about either death individually.

(Shrug)

Hundreds of people are shot ever day in America I think?

40,000 in year of 2025, I think?

https://www.bradyunited.org/resources/statistics

https://www.thetrace.org/2025/12/data-shooting-stats-gun-violence-america/

Media is a very narrow short time period lens. 'Selective.

We 'should care about the deaths of these two people, and I do, even if I am not very 'passionate in how I care.

Law enforcement should be competent, not incompetent.

Should admit fault and hold it's officers responsible.

Should not be so trigger happy.

Where is the bravery and self sacrifice?

. . .

I can't tell what people at 'large think.

People opposed to Trump are of course upset.

. . . I'm not sure what Third Parties and people on the Right think.

Internet 'feels flooded with bots and influencers these days.

In terms of politics, internet and media 'currently feels a 'bit of a failure.

But at least internet makes a lot of information available.

. . .

I 'think the two recent shootings will harm ICE and immigrant removal cause.

. . . But I can't 'see people's hearts,

Not sure what people in power intended, intend.

Is ICE about hurting Left cities?

Is it about creating spectacle and distraction?

Is it pandering to Right and 'seeming like they are effective?

'Are they effective?

People say Trump has 'zero patriotism or other values.

. . . I am doubtful that is true, I think even evil selfish people, will often conflate themselves with various ideals and groups they have associated with.

So too neutral and 'good people.

He was probably a decent guy caught up in American cult politics and ultimately lost his life defending people he probably never really knew much about at all.

His father told him not to get close to the action, and I know that father probably grieves harder than most because of that prediction from a concerned father.

Neither shooting seemed to me justified.

I don't think any killing can be really justified, but these 2 incidents were clearly 100% avoidable.

I would not have acted as either individual did, I think.

But the law is important.

Law enforcement competence and not carelessly killing civilians is important.

I would not have been protesting at Kent State either,

But one does not blame the protestors.

. . . I expect more of law enforcement, they should not be killing people so carelessly,

Possibly neither individual was 'protesting, just ICE happened by.

Failure and carelessness in law enforcement should be held accountable.

Badly created and divisive use of ICE is not ideal to me.

I'm not just talking about American law when I say no killing should be justified.

It's a moral stance that Authority shouldn't stem from murder, and your American laws allow Authority to perform "justified killings"

I see that as maybe something that could be improved.

But clearly, only a few really don't know the dangers of having those laws, and now they are dead.

Do Canadian police not carry guns and occasionally shoot people?

(Not sarcasm,

I'm pretty sure they do, but I am curious of differences)

Bonnie and Clyde is police 'intentionally killing people, Rare.

Lot of other people who get shot, is often done because police think there was danger to their own life, as in they thought they were about to get shot.

We have far fewer people in Canada willing to risk their lives attacking law enforcement whenever they feel like it.

You guys have very heavily funded and well-organized groups dedicated to attacking law enforcement. It's a recipe for tragedy.

Our Parliament would never allow paramilitary vigilante groups like your BLM, BLack Panther, KKK, Proud Boys, Antifa, And I guess the new thing is signal groups for coordinated ICE obstruction?

Our Parliament knows how to deal with organized disruptions of government like the Trucker Convoys before they get organized enough to start violence against the government, which would lead to killings.

Also the state line thing is relevant, not because crossing some imaginary line matters but to emphasize the fact that he traveled a long distance to engage in these protests.

The distance from Antioch, Illinois to Kenosha, Wisconsin is a less than 20 mile drive. He'd likely been there plenty times before growing up (having apparently lived in Antioch his entire life), and it's confirmed that he knew at least one person in the local area (his friend who he was staying in Kenosha with).

He unnecessarily interjected himself into a dangerous situation, sure, but less directly than Pretti did (who physically threw himself between ICE agents and the person they were in an altercation with). In fact, Rittenhouse immediately disengaged and attempted to flee at the first sign of confrontation, and only opened fire after being cornered and assaulted by a lynch mob, at least one member of whom tried to take his gun.

Finally, Rittenhouse was 17 (young enough to be indisputably still a kid, whose sense of good judgment perhaps wasn't as developed as an adult's) whereas Pretti was 37.

I don't even disagree that Pretti's shooting was unjustified but the comparison you're trying to draw between him and Rittenhouse just doesn't work. Even the Wikipedia article for Kenosha reads like an almost comically open and shut case of self defense.

He was probably a decent guy caught up in American cult politics and ultimately lost his life defending people he probably never really knew much about at all.

Not saying that the right are the only ones that do this, but it's a shame this dude is gonna be villainized by a good chunk of Republicans because it's seen as politically useful to do so.

I'm not sure there's really much one 'can villainize Alex Pretti for. . . Yet.

Sure they'll probably try anyhow, but I suspect it'll fizzle out.

Derek Chauvin and George Floyd had actions at the time of their incident and in their pasts that people could use to villainize them.

I suspect a good portion will villainize the people who egged him on instead of him.

ICE is basically trump's gestapo. they have right to enter your home without warrant, arrest you for anything, shoot you for weakest reasons, and they have immunity from law. Gestapo was also above law. ICE is no different from gestapo in powers they have. Correct me if I am wrong here.

I think it would be reasonable that carrying a large gun should make people less likely to attack you.

Not in that context, which is the point. Once civil unrest has gotten out of hand and people are looking for a reason to start trouble, showing up with an AK style rifle around your neck is not going to intimidate, it’s going to inflame. That should have been common sense. Sure, no one would think that people would actually go up to him and start a fight, but there’s no argument that in that situation it would be reasonable to think people in that state of mind would see the gun and think “oh this is too dangerous, let’s go home”.

I also don't think you can blame someone for a fight they didn't instigate just because they went somewhere a fight might happen and someone else attacked them.

I don’t blame him for the split decision he made in the moment he was being attacked. At that point his natural human response to either shot or expect to be shot was probably right. What I blame him for was putting himself in that situation in the first place.

Like you said, his intention was to deter destruction of property, that’s fine and even admirable. But you don’t get to voluntarily walk into that situation brandishing a fully loaded rifle and then act like you’re totally innocent when someone loses their life at the hands of it. He created that situation and the result was entirely foreseeable. That’s the issue.

There’s a reason police officers train for months before we hand them a gun and send them out into the streets. An 18 year old kid has no business being out there.

The comparison is relevant in that, insofar as there are differences between Pretti and Rittenhouse, I don't think those differences are big enough to make either of them the aggressor.

My point isn’t about painting Rittenhouse as the aggressor, it’s about the fact that to the extent you can paint either of them as the aggressor, Rittenhouse was clearly the more fitting example. So for those who are trying to argue that Pretti was the aggressor, if they don’t take that same position towards Rittenhouse they’re just fundamentally unserious.

the comparison you're trying to draw between him and Rittenhouse just doesn't work. Even the Wikipedia article for Kenosha reads like an almost comically open and shut case of self defense.

See last paragraph of post 16 (should be right before this one).

no one would think that people would actually go up to him and start a fight, but there’s no argument that in that situation it would be reasonable to think people in that state of mind would see the gun and think “oh this is too dangerous, let’s go home”.

They might think twice before committing a crime though. Guards/superior force can and do deter attacks in many cases.

Like you said, his intention was to deter destruction of property, that’s fine and even admirable. But you don’t get to voluntarily walk into that situation brandishing a fully loaded rifle and then act like you’re totally innocent when someone loses their life at the hands of it.

It would depend on the context of why that person lost their life, no? If you do an admirable thing and then get attacked and shoot in self defense, that's about as innocent as you can get.

You say you blame him for putting himself in that situation, but also that his showing up to defend property was admirable. I'm not sure how those can both be true.

I'm pretty sure ICE is very different from Gestapo.

Google AI,

1. Consent is Key: If you do not open your door, ICE cannot legally enter unless they have a warrant signed by a judge or federal magistrate.
2. Judicial vs. Administrative Warrants: A valid search or arrest warrant must be signed by a judge (Article III court). An administrative warrant (Form I-200 or I-205) is signed by an immigration officer, not a judge, and does not authorize forced entry.
3. "Know Your Rights": Residents have the right to keep their doors closed, ask for a warrant to be passed under the door, and remain silent.
4. Exceptions: Exceptions exist if officers are in "hot pursuit" of a suspect, or if there is an imminent threat to life, allowing entry without a warrant.
5. Recent Developments: In January 2026, reports indicated internal directives suggesting ICE might attempt to enter homes without a judicial warrant, but such actions are generally considered to violate constitutional protections. 

Key Differences

1. Legal Framework and Oversight:
2. Gestapo: Operated completely outside the judicial system, with no legal limits on their power, no judicial review, and no accountability. They functioned in a totalitarian state where they were above the law.
3. ICE: Operates within a democratic legal framework, subject to constitutional laws, court challenges, and congressional oversight. While critics allege "de facto" immunity through federal policies or actions, ICE is not inherently immune from legal accountability.
4. Purpose and Goal:
5. Gestapo: Aimed to eliminate political, racial, and ideological "undesirables" through terror, torture, and murder, serving a genocidal dictatorship.
6. ICE: A federal agency focused on enforcing civil and criminal immigration laws, identifying and deporting individuals in the country illegally.
7. Use of Force:
8. Gestapo: Used unlimited, arbitrary violence, including systematic torture and summary executions as standard practice.
9. ICE: Bound by regulations against excessive force. While aggressive tactics (raids, masked agents) have led to comparisons, ICE is not authorized to use the same level of violence.
10. Public Accountability:
11. Gestapo: Operated as a "secret" police, with total suppression of any public criticism or oversight.
12. ICE: Operates in a society with active public debate, media scrutiny, and widespread political, legal, and community opposition. 

I think the reaction is a combination of two things. First is the basic can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. If we assume that 1% of ICE is retarded (I know, being a bit generous here), all it takes is 100 retarded people who think life is a Disney movie throwing themselves at ICE for one to get ventilated. It was bound to happen just through statistics alone, just like if you have cops some idiot is going to try to run/assault them at some point and will end up dead. This is just blood lost due to the basic friction of having a society.

The second is the right basically learning from the left, this is why the case is so similar to Rittenhouse. The left has taught the right that apologizing or trying to be decent or trying to meet them halfway is seen as blood in the water and a sign to counterattack rather than a good faith attempt at reaching common ground. This has led to a mantra online of 'never apologize to the left'. This seems to now be seeping into the actual administration, which is taking a brazenly unapologetic approach to all accusations leveled against it. This eventually builds up into a kind of media bubble where all information inside is fed back in by people who have bought into this lionized self-conception. The exact same thing happened on the left with Rittenhouse, that's why it looks so similar. I think taking it to this level is a bit of a misstep - I know several left-leaning people who were a bit staggered to discover that all the people Rittenhouse had shot were white and it led to them questioning the media bubble that had left them with such a deluded impression. These media bubbles, while potent, come with their own strategic dangers in the long-term.

 it just seems weird to me that the people defending Rittenhouse as obvious self-defense haven't recognized that Pretti was also obviously behaving within the bounds of the law.

In context of what's happening in this country, there is nothing weird about it.

This is all about the divisiveness and hatred, and the completely different attitudes and opinions depending on which side you are on. The MAGA right thinks violence against the left is justified, and they think dissent, protest, or resistance is criminal, so violence against the "opposition" is justified, this s the way the right sees themselves, and it's the way the left sees them, that isn't going to change based on the details of how and why Alex Pretti was killed.

Comparing the details of Alex Pretti and Kyle Rittenhouse is an irrelevant circle jerk that at best, serves as a distraction from the big picture of what is happening. The right demonizes Alex Pretti for bringing a gun to a protest, obviously the enemy's intent was "to kill as many ICE agents as possible", and they glorify Kyle Rittenhouse for bringing a gun to a protest "to defend property" from the enemy, and beyond that, comparing details doesn't really matter. How you see it is a matter of which side you are on, and nobody is going to change their opinion, no matter what the facts demonstrate. We all saw the extensive videos of what happened at the capitol building on Jan 6, 2021, that violent outburst of lawlessness and brutal violence against the police, with the expressed intent to Kill the Vice President and the Speaker of the House. If the right can see that as a peaceful protest, an glorify those people as "patriots" who should be celebrated and pardoned, then details about what really happened just don't matter. Alex Pretti is the enemy and deserved to be treated like the enemy, that's all there is to it.

The ICE assault of Minneapolis is designed to feed the far-right propaganda machine, the intent is to incite violence and feed the machine, and deception and lies about the situation, about what is happening, are happening in real time. Check out this article, an activist was arrested, a picture of her was taken, and 30 minutes later Kristi Noem posted the photo on truth social, the picture was completely altered in real time to provide a deceptive picture of what is happening in Minneapolis.

Trump's altered image of an anti-ICE protester marks a chilling new era

This isn't a matter of a disagreement in details, pictures don't lie, but pictures altered in real time do lie, and DHS is using ICE and lies, and altered photographs to represent a deceptive picture of what is happening in Minneapolis.

Do we really want to act surprised that the MAGA propaganda machine is trying to make hamburger out of Alex Pretti, when we know full well that it's a hamburger machine?

"The left has taught the right that apologizing or trying to be decent or trying to meet them halfway is seen as blood in the water and a sign to counterattack rather than a good faith attempt at reaching common ground."

I can't think of any examples of this, not that there are not examples.

I can't think of any examples of this, not that there are not examples.

It was learned during cancel culture, where people who apologized and tried to appease the left while condemning what they'd said that was 'wrong' were abandoned by their supporters as cowardly and unprincipled and were not forgiven or adopted by the left - instead they were often further castigated and attacked, only this time they were alone with no defenders. The people who doubled down kept their supporters and were better able to resist the attempted cancellation.

There are a bunch of articles on this phenomenon published a few years ago from both sides of the aisle:

https://financialpost.com/opinion/first-rule-being-cancelled-never-apologize

https://medium.com/publishous/cancel-culture-needs-a-clear-cut-path-to-redemption-c484b8cb7d46

What do you think of the emerging vigilante culture in America post-Floyd?

Is it concerning at all that vigilante groups are organizing and harming far more Americans through mistaken identity than ICE is?

ICE: Bound by regulations against excessive force. While aggressive tactics (raids, masked agents) have led to comparisons, ICE is not authorized to use the same level of violence.

Given the recent events, I am not really sure what ICE is authorized in terms of force. Apparently, they can shoot people when detecting even smallest threat or even making up threat just to shoot someone. the bar to use highest amount of force (lethal force) seems to be terribly low.

American police in general are a bit trigger happy, at times, and have been for years, maybe.

Doesn't make them Gestapo.

I do not think ICE is 'more trigger happy than our regular police have been in recent years.

Seeing gun, hearing gun, gunshot, seeing someone reach into pocket.

I'm not sure American low enforcement are very good de-escalators.

But then one does not see media highlighting the good in American law enforcement, the normal, as much as the bad, maybe.

nobody is going to change their opinion, no matter what the facts demonstrate

Enough moderates have condemned the shooting that I'm not sure this is entirely true.

I support that. Vigilantism is often a release valve.

There's a big difference between saying vigilantism is a result of corruption and saying it is good for society. Copycat shootings are a real thing, and the next ten assassins might have a very different idea from you about which people deserve the bullet.

I do not think ICE is 'more trigger happy than our regular police have been in recent years.

Yeah, but 3 additional problems:

1. ICE has some sort of legal immunity. they arent even prosecuted for their actions.
2. ICE can detain person without a warrant. Regular police actually cannot detain you over 24 hours without a warrant.
3. ICE can break into homes without a warrant. Regular police can almost never do this except in special cases.

So I would say ICE has a bit more authority than regular police.

I am not well read on the subject.

1, I need more information about their immunity.

2, I need more information.

3, I would assume they would enter a building if they were in pursuit and saw an illegal enter it.