Another ICE shooting in MN.

[Bigfoot]

Swing and a miss.

Urban Dictionary: Cape

Cape: When someone is protecting, covering for or being a “hero” for another person.

cape.urbanup.com

I've never heard that term before, so I looked it up and came up with capping. IDK.

 

[spat]

Please do identify the ad hominem.
The law and UoF procedure are matters of fact. If I've misrepresented or misstated them, as Rocpo has claimed, then the invitation stands for him to set the record straight. Your running interference is a convenient distraction.

If you intended this to be a private discussion with Rocpo, then you should have done it in a DM and not a public forum.

By posting it here the invitation for anyone with an opinion to join is implicit.

I have pointed out your error about use of force multiple times, but I will re-iterate:

It's irrelevant that he had been disarmed if the agents who fired didn't know he'd been disarmed.

And I am not coming to his aid, he is clearly done with the conversation and doesn't need any help either way.

I am just here to make it clear why this shoot was legally justified. That seems to be the opinion of most of us involved in this thread, I'm not sure why you have singled out Rocpo as the only champion the cause you are concerned with.

 

[Rap]

If you intended this to be a private discussion with Rocpo, then you should have done it in a DM and not a public forum.

By posting it here the invitation for anyone with an opinion to join is implicit.

I have pointed out you're error about use of force multiple times, but I will re-iterate:

It's irrelevant that he had been disarmed if the agents who fired didn't know he'd been disarmed.

And I am not coming to his aid, he is clearly done with the conversation and doesn't need any help either way.

I am just here to make it clear why this shoot was legally justified. That seems to be the opinion of most of us involved in this thread, I'm not sure why you have singled out Rocpo as the only champion the cause you are concerned with.

My reason for addressing Rocpo specifically is because he claims knowledge that great exceeds mine, which is "less than elementary."

This represents a learning opportunity in a way that you repeating your poorly substantiated *opinion* as a layman does not. Since this discussion centers the actions of law enforcement, there is value in hearing straight from the horse's mouth.

Also, @Rocpo making such a bold claim only to disappear is...weak. Back up your bluster!

The invitation stands.

Finally, it should be obvious to anyone reading this thread and others that I participate in, that I am a counter puncher. Don't start none, won't be none. For you to suggest that my conduct is the problem, is silly. Stop clutching your pearls and trying to get me DQ'd on a nonsensical ad hominems accusation. You may not like my views, but as you mentioned, this is a public forum. You're going to have to cope.

 

[holdover]

Suggesting that Pretti’s presence as a civilian legal observer is “the problem” is both legally and morally misguided.

His presence as a civilian legal observer does not hold water. He was, and had been interfering with Law enforcement operations , he was not there to observe . He was obstructing Federal agents from doing thier jobs


Although He had every right to be armed . He should have recognized the extreme danger he was placing himself in . Lets say for the sake of arguing, that the agent made a mistake, it was a bad shoot. What does he gain now? A tombstone with the epitah, Heres lies Alex Pretti , He was right.

 

[holdover]

It's irrelevant that he had been disarmed if the agents who fired didn't know he'd been disarmed.

As a former federal law enforcement agent myself , I have to agree with this . At the moment of the shooting I heard GUN GUN GUN then the shots . At this point, it is reasonable to believe there is a threat,

 

[spat]

My reason for addressing Rocpo specifically is because he claims knowledge that great exceeds mine, which is "less than elementary."

This represents a learning opportunity in a way that you repeating your poorly substantiated *opinion* as a layman does not. Since this discussion centers the actions of law enforcement, there is value in hearing straight from the horse's mouth.

Also, @Rocpo making such a bold claim only to disappear is...weak. Back up your bluster!

The invitation stands.

Finally, it should be obvious to anyone reading this thread and others that I participate in, that I am a counter puncher. Don't start none, won't be none. For you to suggest that my conduct is the problem, is silly. Stop clutching your pearls and trying to get me DQ'd on a nonsensical ad hominems accusation. You may not like my views, but as you mentioned, this is a public forum. You're going to have to cope.

While I do not have law enforcement experience, I do have formal education on use of force law.

The differences between law enforcement and ordinary citizen's justification are very limited and specific. Basically law enforcement doesn't have a duty to retreat in a few cases where ordinary citizens do, and obviously law enforcement has certain powers they can exercise that would be criminal for the rest of us in a way that would render our use of force unjustified.

But, the only relevance that has here is that the officers were legally empowered to arrest Pretti.

Otherwise the justification is the same.

You claimed earlier that I was making irrelevant statements. What did I say that wasn't relevant ?

I layed out a few statements that people claimed were the "reason" he was shot, and pointed out what they were wrong, but they're not irrelevant, they're specifically refuting erroneous claims made by others.

Then I layed out the *only* things that are actually relevant to the justification, and that is what the officers who fired reasonably believed at the time.

You are claiming I was ascribing thoughts and intentions to third parties as if those aren't the *only* relevant facts to the whole discussion. If you aren't going to do that, then you have nothing relevant to bring to the discussion.

I think the thoughts and intentions I was ascribing are quite reasonable inferences to draw based on what we know.

And the main aspect of "elementary use of force" that you seem to be woefully uninformed about is that justification is based on what the people using the force reasonably believed, not on what the reality of the situation was.

That's why it's justified to shoot someone threatening you with a realistic looking toy gun, and that's why it's reasonable here to have shot someone you reasonably believed was still armed, whether or not they were, in fact, still armed.

That concept is one of the cornerstones of use of force law, and is covered extensively in any class on it's use.