Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 01/25/2026 4:07:27 PM PST by chajin
As a retired federal agent and an attorney, this is my opinion based upon what is known right now. You don’t have to agree, and I will not debate, allow the full investigation to play out. I do know that the individual would still be alive today if he had exercised his right to protest from a distance and not interjected himself into the situation. The loss of life is always tragic.
Understanding the Use of Force in the Minneapolis Federal Enforcement Incident Why the Law Matters More Than the Narrative Public debate around officer-involved shootings often turns on emotion, politics, or incomplete facts. The United States Constitution, however, requires a legal analysis, not a political one. Whether force was lawful does not depend on labels such as “execution” or “murder,” but on objective constitutional standards developed by the U.S. Supreme Court over decades. This brief explains those standards and how they apply to the incident as described by federal officials.
1. The Constitutional Rule That Governs Use of Force All law enforcement use-of-force cases are judged under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable seizures.
The controlling Supreme Court case is Graham v. Connor (1989). Under Graham, force is evaluated based on: • What a reasonable officer would do • At the moment force was used • Given the facts known at the time The Court is explicit: decisions cannot be judged with hindsight, political beliefs, or emotional reactions after the fact.
2. The Three Graham Factors In Plain English. The Supreme Court instructs courts to consider three core factors together:
A. How Serious Was the Situation? This was not a casual interaction. According to federal authorities, agents were conducting a targeted federal enforcement operation a lawful action carried out under federal authority. During that operation, a third party inserted himself into the encounter while armed with a handgun. Interfering with federal officers while armed is inherently serious and dangerous. This factor supports heightened officer caution and authority.
B. Did the Person Pose an Immediate Threat? (The Most Important Factor) The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that an armed individual who refuses to disengage poses an immediate and potentially lethal threat. Officers are not required to wait until they are shot before defending themselves. Based on the facts presented: • The individual approached officers while armed • A physical struggle occurred • The individual did not comply or surrender • Officers were attempting to control or disarm a firearm Under Supreme Court precedent, this alone can justify deadly force. A struggle over a gun is one of the most dangerous situations officers face.
C. Was There Active Resistance? The law draws a clear distinction between: • Passive noncompliance, and • Active resistance especially while armed An armed individual who physically resists officers during an enforcement action is, under constitutional law, creating a life threatening scenario. Officers are permitted to use decisive force to stop that threat.
3. Officers Are Allowed to Protect Their Lives The Constitution does not require law enforcement officers to sacrifice themselves to avoid public criticism or satisfy political narratives. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that officers must make split second decisions in tense, rapidly evolving situations. When those decisions are reasonable under the circumstances, they are constitutional even if the outcome is tragic.
4. Why This Was Not an “Execution” Words matter. Under constitutional law: • An execution is punishment after due process • Deadly force is a defensive act used to stop an immediate threat When force is used during: • An active struggle • Involving a firearm • With a non-compliant individual …it is legally classified as defensive force, not punishment or retaliation. Disagreeing with immigration policy or federal enforcement does not change the constitutional analysis.
5. Crowd Interference Increases Danger Federal courts recognize that: • Hostile crowds • Interference with officers • Escalating chaos …increase the risk to officers and bystanders alike. Officers are allowed to factor this into their threat assessment. The law does not require them to wait until the situation becomes uncontrollable.
6. The Bottom Line Based on Supreme Court precedent and the facts as publicly stated: • The legal standard is objective reasonableness, not political opinion • An armed individual who physically resists officers presents a constitutionally recognized lethal threat • Officers are legally permitted to use deadly force to stop that threat • The Constitution prioritizes officer and public safety, not hindsight narratives This incident, as described by federal officials, fits squarely within long established constitutional law governing lawful use of force.
Final Note Tragedy does not equal illegality. Emotion does not override the Constitution. And lawful enforcement does not become unlawful simply because it is controversial. Facts matter. Law matters. And the Constitution matters most.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Great post.
Agreed.
“””As a retired federal agent and an attorney,””””
His commentary is much needed.
There seems to be a dearth of commentary from conservative attorneys.
Yes, that’s an intellectual tour de force, but it fails to account for the gun BEING IN POLCE POSSESSION when Pretti was shot approximately ten times.
I saw an interesting take on this.
A tragic accident, caused by a negligent discharge of the deceased’s firearm by the agent who removed the firearm. Leading to multiple reactive discharges from the other agents...
Sad but these things could have been prevented by not obstructing law officers...
Pretti himself started the process of suicide by cop long before he was shot.
His possession and intent is the beginning and end of discussion as to why he was shot. Pretti is solely responsible for being dead before, during and after any possession.
Officers in MPLS have to be experiencing a kind of PTSD. Maybe they need to rotate them into a less stressful position and give them time to decompress.
GREAT post. Thanks.
They also likely need to develop new tactics to deal with this new kind of environment.
Yeah, and a dearth of intelligent commentary by certain posters who show up on every thread. I have seen them all on the same threads about this. Disgusting. But they haven’t been ejected.
Probably retreads, and will retread themselves when they get booted again.
2. In a fracas like that, one of the biggest dangers the LEOs face is the aggressor grabbing one of THEIR weapons.
Don’t post that nonsense. The clip shows the gun in the hand of the ICE guy who took it away from the guy who got shot.
No longer available on FB. Thanks for posting it all.
There is a concept of "imperfect self-defense", meaning that a misperception, if objectively reasonable, does imply willful misconduct.
We believe that the protester had been disarmed because we saw the video, but was that information clear to the shooter? Could it be reasonable to believe the man was still armed, thus still dangerous?
The decision to use lethal force can only be judged on what was known at the moment the shots occurred. Was there any audio from the officer saying, "I have the gun"?
When intent and fear are key elements of the situation, the video only gives a few clues.
There are parallels to the Zimmerman situation in Florida.
Zimmerman was being MMA pummeled and having his head repeatedly bashed into the edge of a concrete sidewalk when his attacker discovered that Zimmerman was armed with a gun.
The two then struggled for sole control of the gun, during which struggle, the gun discharged, and the struggle ended.
Zimmerman obtained the gun for defense against attack by a pitbull.
Zimmerman wasn’t even reaching for the gun at the time his attacker (sitting astride Zimmerman) discovered it. Hence he was about as far as you can get from being trigger happy, or “brandishing” the gun as some ignorant people tended to parrot at the time.
Also parallels to the Michael Brown shooting back in 20104 in Ferguson, MO.
Brown came so close to getting possession of Officer Wilson’s weapon during a violent fight for control.
Luckily Wilson prevailed and shot Brown six times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Michael_Brown#
[A. How Serious Was the Situation? This was not a casual interaction. According to federal authorities, agents were conducting a targeted federal enforcement operation a lawful action carried out under federal authority. During that operation, a third party inserted himself into the encounter while armed with a handgun. Interfering with federal officers while armed is inherently serious and dangerous. This factor supports heightened officer caution and authority.
B. Did the Person Pose an Immediate Threat? (The Most Important Factor) The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that an armed individual who refuses to disengage poses an immediate and potentially lethal threat. Officers are not required to wait until they are shot before defending themselves. Based on the facts presented: • The individual approached officers while armed • A physical struggle occurred • The individual did not comply or surrender • Officers were attempting to control or disarm a firearm Under Supreme Court precedent, this alone can justify deadly force. A struggle over a gun is one of the most dangerous situations officers face.
C. Was There Active Resistance? The law draws a clear distinction between: • Passive noncompliance, and • Active resistance especially while armed An armed individual who physically resists officers during an enforcement action is, under constitutional law, creating a life threatening scenario. Officers are permitted to use decisive force to stop that threat.]
🔝🔝🔝
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.