But they didn’t “just want to cause chaos or steal things”. Again, they were there because they’re sick and tired of a system that they believed does not value human life if that life is wrapped in dark skin.
Well, I guess Pretti found out the hard way about the myth of white supremacy.
Kirk I'd say was an assassination by his own 'side' but that's a discussion for another day.
Aint no way I’m gonna let you drop this incredibly spicy take and then refuse to elaborate further. Please tell us
Aint no way I’m gonna let you drop this incredibly spicy take and then refuse to elaborate further. Please tell us
I just don't think the official story adds up. The gun being found in the woods by the FBI after that patch of woods had been swept by dogs trained to detect gunpowder traces and turned up nothing. The gun itself having a very small chance of producing the sort of damage that eventually killed Kirk. TPUSA and his wife completely lying about weird things - the text messages saying he was thinking of drawing back form the Israeli cause, the fact that he was suspicious of finances. The meeting that just leaked where she was talking giddily about hat sales a couple weeks after her husband was killed, coupled with her wearing hot pants and hugging JD Vance while standing on her husband's coffin, and then having her ex-boyfriend talking at events (an ex that she lied about ever having when talking to Bari Weiss, just claiming that she wasn't dating in NYC for a five year period or drinking when there are videos of her dating multiple guys and sipping Champagne during that interval). The internet searches on bizarre details of the event before it happened - the doctor, the hospital they brought him too, the suspects, often around the time of the infamous Tucker speech which incensed donors. The fact that TPUSA lied about Charlie telling Tucker to give that speech and then Megyn Kelly producing video proving that it happened. The weird plane that tracked Erika's location so frequently that the probability of it being random coincidence is astronomically low.
Like any of these things you could make an argument that, you know, it's not likely but there are alternate explanations that explain why they aren't suspicious. Maybe the bullet had a 1 in 500 chance of weirdly deflecting and not causing an exit wound. Maybe Erika lied about her past repeatedly just to keep up the facade of an innocent Christian girl for business reasons. Maybe planes flagged to the Egyptian military following her is just someone keeping watch on her that she's unaware of or maybe it's someone in a billion random coincidence that people are picking up on. Maybe TPUSA has been caught lying because people just keep being incompetent. Maybe all of those weird google searches that were happening in DC, FBI field offices, and Israel and nowhere else in the world months before the event on details that nobody would know about prior are just three guys in those locations who are really, really interested in random people in a Utah town who just happened to later be involved in the assassination. There comes a point where it becomes more logical to entertain the possibility of some kind of conspiracy than it does to continue to believe in a large number of unlikely coincidences.
At this point I ask, 'cui bono' and it's largely the Israeli/Evangelical nexus who can take control to the TPUSA machine and don't have to deal with its leader going rogue and turning against them - something that would be a disaster for them at a critical juncture. We now have ample hard evidence of donors coming down hard on Charlie before his death, of Bibi offering the famous 'trip' to Israel which Charlie declined. They just spent billions buying Paramount and Tiktok, an assassination is chump change compared to that. And with the Trump admin utterly beholden to them, they know that there will be no real chance of them being exposed by any government inquiries.
Even the NRA is defending Alex’s right to carry a gun because he had the right open and carry permit .
you have said the crowd was willing to assault anyone who showed up because they were angry in general and not logical. Is that not demonizing them?
Well, first of all, assessing someone as being emotionally rather than logically driven is not demonizing.
Second, I never referred to “the crowd” as if what I’m saying applies to everyone. This is about a basic understanding of human nature and how it shows up with regards to statistics. A large group full of angry people are extremely likely to include at least a few individuals who would do things that anyone in a level headed rational state of mind would not. This is common sense.
Applying to this situation would mean, brandishing an AK style rifle in this context will almost certainly lead to confrontation, which will almost certainly result in him having to use that gun, which will almost certainly lead to someone being killed.
It’s hardly any different from doing 120 on the freeway. Your intent wasn’t to hurt anyone, but you clearly did not think about nor give much weight to the consequences if things don’t go the way you hoped. And for that you are responsible.
Just cause they're ready to attack people doesn't mean they are more likely to attack someone who could defend themselves.
Again, you fail to understand the situation on a very basic level. By brandishing his rifle, Kyle didn’t just make himself another person in the crowd, he made himself a target. Why? Because he stood out. And in so doing he sent a very clear signal to the protesters/rioters that he was there to stop them. And his means of doing so was to use deadly force, the very same thing those people were out there protesting in the first place. Again, that’s not going to deter, that’s going to inflame, which is exactly what happened.
brandishing an AK style rifle in this context will almost certainly lead to confrontation, which will almost certainly result in him having to use that gun, which will almost certainly lead to someone being killed
Plenty of people open carry guns and don't get attacked, plenty of people without weapons got attacked. This is a bit like saying banks having an armed guard will make robbers want to rob them more because robbers are irrational and the guard will make them mad. Kyle is one data point.
It’s hardly any different from doing 120 on the freeway. Your intent wasn’t to hurt anyone, but you clearly did not think about nor give much weight to the consequences if things don’t go the way you hoped.
Except doing 120 endangers others even if they do everything right; carrying a rifle isn't endangering anyone unless they attack you.
Why? Because he stood out.
I mean, same applies to wearing a bright shirt or a jersey for an unpopular sports team. Or a woman going to clean up graffiti at a place where people have been sexually assaulted, and then killing a rapist in self defense. The aggressor put themselves in danger, she didn't put them in any danger until they attacked her.
his means of doing so was to use deadly force, the very same thing those people were out there protesting in the first place
Carrying a weapon isn't using deadly force. He only used it when he was attacked; the protesters were specifically protesting unnecessary deadly force.
The topic is about Alex Pretti and not Kyle. You can’t be that confused.
Ryan McBeth
The Documented Strategy Behind Minneapolis Protest Responses
15:48 sec long
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLU0y-FA8ZI
I mentioned both in my initial post.
But lost track down the line. Stick to the topic.
Plenty of people open carry guns and don't get attacked, plenty of people without weapons got attacked. This is a bit like saying banks having an armed guard will make robbers want to rob them more because robbers are irrational and the guard will make them mad. Kyle is one data point.
None of your examples are the slightest bit relevant to the context of the riots in which this incident took place. This is an apples to oranges comparison and you know that.
Except doing 120 endangers others even if they do everything right; carrying a rifle isn't endangering anyone unless they attack you.
Focusing on the part of the analogy that isn’t relevant and ignoring the part that is.
I was talking about intent vs consideration for real life consequences. You’re talking about individual accountability. These are totally different subjects.
I mean, same applies to wearing a bright shirt or a jersey for an unpopular sports team.
Wearing a jersey at a sporting event is not the slightest bit comparable to brandishing and AK style rifle in a riot.
This is a fundamentally unserious comparison.
The aggressor put themselves in danger
I never excused the aggressors, so this point is irrelevant.
Carrying a weapon isn't using deadly force.
It’s a very clear signal to the protesters/rioters as to what you’re there for. A point which you have totally ignored.
The topic is about Alex Pretti and not Kyle. You can’t be that confused.
Im not confused at all. I’m responding to the points being thrown back at me. If you have an issue with my response by all means tell me where I went wrong. Otherwise feel free to mind your own business.
The topic is about Alex Pretti and not Kyle. You can’t be that confused.
Did AI tell you that.
Try reading the OP, all of it, not just the first paragraph, it's about both, Alex Pretti and Kyle Rittenhouse.
You know what? I've changed my mind about Pretti.
Basically the entire hagiographical narrative constructed about the man by the media thus far has been proven a lie. He'd exhibited violent behavior toward ICE before, they recognized him going into the second encounter, and such a man having a gun on him was the final straw.
Those who live by the gun shall die by the gun.
You know what? I've changed my mind about Pretti.
As in the shooting was self-defense, or that the guy was a criminal?
I'm open to new evidence if it comes out, but if the entirety of the new context is him doing bad things days before the shooting, I still don't think it meets the definition of self-defense. Should have been arrested earlier, but that's not enough to justify lethal force on its own.
they recognized him going into the second encounter, and such a man having a gun on him was the final straw.
I don't think they've said yet that they recognized him, though it's possible. Even so, having destroyed property previously isn't enough to make you a lethal threat in the moment.
the entire hagiographical narrative constructed about the man by the media thus far has been proven a lie
I'm not sure it's lying to exclusively report based on the evidence they have at the time of the report. If there was a bigger conspiracy to hide the new video, then it would be lying.
But on the day he was shot he did not pull out a gun or kick anything.
But on the day he was shot he did not pull out a gun or kick anything.
Yeah that's my point.
They caught everything on video. Hard to argue with facts.
You know what? I've changed my mind about Pretti.
Basically the entire hagiographical narrative constructed about the man by the media thus far has been proven a lie. He'd exhibited violent behavior toward ICE before, they recognized him going into the second encounter, and such a man having a gun on him was the final straw.
He broke a taillight, so he deserved to die.
Wow.
While I wouldn't say this villainizes him, I think Alex loses a lot of victim points. Maybe all of them.
Still doesn't make ICE's actions when he got shot, ideal.
Alex Pretti Seen Spitting at and Kicking Out ICE Taillight in Earlier Wild Clash With Federal Agents
2 min 41 sec long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR-oVRTMveo
Alex Pretti did not pull out a gun and was therefore not shot the first time around. But the ICE officers messed up the second time.
I'm open to new evidence if it comes out, but if the entirety of the new context is him doing bad things days before the shooting, I still don't think it meets the definition of self-defense. Should have been arrested earlier, but that's not enough to justify lethal force on its own.
What I'm arguing is that he posed a serious threat to officers on scene. His previous behavior, which was apparently unprovoked aside from the mere fact of ICE being present, painted a picture of him as being an unstable person who would violently escalate a situation at the drop of a hat, and the outcome of his last run-in with ICE would certainly give him more reason to bear a murderous grudge than he had before. This is what distinguished him from any other protester who happened to have a gun on their person.
All of this, coupled with the fact that he evidently didn't bring a gun on him the last time (since he was tackled to the ground and probably frisked) but he did this time, would have suggested to any reasonable officer that he intended to try to kill them, either from the onset or upon something happening that he could choose to interpret as further provocation (as being tackled again would've accomplished).
This being the case, the only criticism I can see holding water as to the officers' conduct that day centers around this question: should they reasonably have believed that the level of risk to themselves had been reduced to the extent that would no longer justify use of lethal force?
Like, sure, if an officer walks past a 4 year old wearing a thick overcoat the chance of some nefarious actor having strapped a bomb underneath isn't technically 0%, but we'd agree that a cop randomly shooting a toddler wouldn't be justified just because he happened to run this thought experiment in his head. So officers are obliged to accept some degree of risk to their persons as a hazard of the job before escalating.
But said obligation has its limits. At some point it becomes justified to defend themselves by killing someone else. The question is whether that threshold was met, both in terms of what they knew and what they didn't know in the heat of the moment, when they opened fire on Pretti. Did the officer who opened fire know he'd been disarmed, that he was unable to reach for the confiscated gun, that he wasn't on the verge of overpowering the officers and doing so, that he didn't have a concealed second gun, or that he was unable to reach for said gun even if it existed?
I wonder a bit,
How various individuals and incidents in history would have changed,
If internet and modern phones had existed for various times.
the fact that he evidently didn't bring a gun on him the last time (since he was tackled to the ground and probably frisked) but he did this time...would have suggested to any reasonable officer that he intended to try to kill them
This premise is dubious at best. If he'd tried to go for the gun, then that would be a sign he intended to use it, but he didn't despite having the opportunity. If he was going to use a long range weapon, why close the distance? Plenty of signs of aggression he could have shown in that encounter but didn't. And once he was thrown on the ground there was little he could do, so was their plan to kill him the moment he walked up to them? Once they were in control of him, I'm skeptical there was no way they could have made sure he wasn't trying to kill them. A lot of people carry guns at protests for self-defense purposes, and a lot of them have broken minor laws, so I think classifying Pretti's actions as effectively a violent threat (based solely on what we've seen so far) is casting a pretty wide net.
but he didn't despite having the opportunity.
You sure about that? I saw a video of him with the phone in his left hand, and his right hand reached around the back, touching his empty holster when the shots started. Then the straight answer is: yes, that motion does appear in at least one video angle.
Phone in the left hand, right hand goes back toward the empty holster area right as shots start. Full stop.
I'm not asking for motive, justification, or narrative, just simply where his hand was.
Once they were in control of him
This is getting repeated ad nauseam. A struggling person isn't under control until the cuffs are on and in a closed car.
his right hand reached around the back, touching his empty holster when the shots started
So they saw him reaching for a gun but not that the gun was removed? If something is taken off my belt or pocket my hand is instinctively gonna move toward it. At best it's pretty bad communication, a reasonable agent would handle the situation different from the start.
This is getting repeated ad nauseam. A struggling person isn't under control until the cuffs are on and in a closed car.
Mostly in control still raises the bar for what's considered appropriate force. If you throw someone down unexpectedly they're gonna instinctively flail, the implications of that justifying deadly force are far too broad.
So they saw him reaching for a gun but not that the gun was removed? If something is taken off my belt or pocket my hand is instinctively gonna move toward it. At best it's pretty bad communication, a reasonable agent would handle the situation different from the start.
Like I said, I am not spinning a narrative about it or to clairvoyantly tell you why he put his hand there, just telling you where his hand was.
Mostly in control still raises the bar for what's considered appropriate force. If you throw someone down unexpectedly they're gonna instinctively flail, the implications of that justifying deadly force are far too broad.
Again, I am not ascribing a narrative here, just pointing out the continued misuse of the term.
If you were referring to my original comment about him not going for the gun, I meant when he still had it on his belt, mainly when he was approaching the officers since that would give a good idea of his intentions.
This premise is dubious at best. If he'd tried to go for the gun, then that would be a sign he intended to use it, but he didn't despite having the opportunity. If he was going to use a long range weapon, why close the distance?
I would speculate that he had half the motivation he needed to kill someone, but knew he needed an additional push to bring himself to pull the trigger.
I trust you've heard of the idea of someone "looking for a fight". You could very well ask why a person looking for a fight doesn't just start off by throwing the first punch, and the answer is they want the other person to provoke them to violent retaliation. In this case, he either specifically engineered a scenario where an ICE officer would lay hands on him (which would explain why he threw himself between an ICE agent and the woman involved in an altercation with said ICE agent) or somewhat more passively stepped into the middle of a brawl to let the chips fall where they may. Either way, the end result would've been the same: that somebody would afford him the psychologically needed pretext to escalate to murder.
Plenty of signs of aggression he could have shown in that encounter but didn't. And once he was thrown on the ground there was little he could do, so was their plan to kill him the moment he walked up to them?
He may have wrongly anticipated that after the fight broke out and the preconditions for murder were satisfied, he would have a chance to draw, point, and fire his gun as opposed to being disarmed as swiftly as he was.
A lot of people carry guns at protests for self-defense purposes, and a lot of them have broken minor laws, so I think classifying Pretti's actions as effectively a violent threat (based solely on what we've seen so far) is casting a pretty wide net.
Sure, but in this case it's more helpful to think of ICE as a collective entity - a fictitious person, almost, with every masked face being the same masked face in his mind and in the minds of most Democrats - that he'd gotten into a bloody fight with just a week before and he was now picking a fight with again, this time packing heat he wasn't packing then. There's a less clear cut correlation between, say, the average person's having been arrested by some small town cop 15 years ago for having a gram of weed and their level of hostility toward ICE specifically now. This was a deranged man with a fresh vendetta specifically directed towards the people who wound up killing him.
