Posted on 02/03/2026 3:17:43 AM PST by RandFan
@60Minutes
“I saw a man that was retreating,” GOP Sen. Rand Paul says of the video he saw of Alex Pretti, shot and killed by federal immigration officers. He has scheduled a Congressional hearing on the matter.
(Excerpt) Read more at x.com ...
Absolutely not. Have I ever said that in 25+ years of posting on FR?
That's not the right question. The right question is: Dis Pretti do something or break a law that justified, according to the law, being apprehended by law enforcement officers?
If the answer to that is YES (and it is), then the next question would relate to the details of that apprehension/arrest.
Hey I just learned that the FR is 29 yrs old. That goes all the way back to the early Internet.
Paul is not rational. He does not think ahead when he is grandstanding. He just wants his face on T.V. He hurts the Republicans with his silly moves.
Yet so many people talked tough about the feds during the previous administration and seem to not understand how they are going to be treated when power changes hands
Like a little boy, who has never been corrected properly.
“Did Pretti do something or break a law that justified, according to the law, him being shot and killed?”
Not even close to the issue.
The question is, did Pretti act in a manner that forced the LEO to fear for his life thus requiring a life-or-death decision to be made quickly in the heat of the moment.
ICE agents have families they want to go home too, these people interfering, as they do, make the LEOs suffer daily wondering if they are facing imminent death.
Compassion for the acts of someone willfully committing intentional evil is not mercy nor grace, it is also evil.
I did some further research on the 'law' that may dictate any decision on the Pretti case. I.e:
"Under Minnesota law and Federal Constitutional standards, a LEO cannot legally shoot someone simply for resisting arrest while carrying a pistol. There must be an additional element of "imminent threat." If the suspect is resisting but the pistol remains secured and the suspect makes no motion to use it, the use of deadly force would likely be considered a violation of the Fourth Amendment and Minnesota State Statute 609.066. However, if the resistance involves movements that lead a reasonable officer to believe the suspect is about to transition from "carrying" to "using" the weapon, the law typically protects the officer's decision to use force."
How exactly does one do that perfectly in such a moment? Sounds like you would rather see an officer die second guessing himself in a moment of a life-or-death decision. There is no perfect answer, yet you expect the officer to make a perfect response. Only Christ can do that. Reflect on that as your non deplume indicates you should.
They way that works is the courts typically give great deference to the officer unless there is compelling evidence to suspect the officer acted with malice.
They guy interjected himself into the conflict, already his actions showed he was willing to use force to prevent the officer from executing his duties.
Also, Minnesota law is worthless as this was a federal action, again I will reiterate, the supremacy clause ‘trumps” state law in this case. If the federal investigation finds it justified, state law is moot.
Thanks! That’s encouraging.
I presumed, considering that Rand is protecting and supporting those who are anti-ICE and pro-illegal immigration. And you said you generally align with him.
Apologies. I didn’t have enough information, and was drawing what I thought were logical conclusions based on what info I did have. Sorry.
My further research provided this info:
The critical sequence of events, as captured on video, unfolds as follows:
Initial Interaction: Pretti is seen filming and directing traffic. He intervenes when a federal agent pushes a woman to the ground, placing himself between the agent and the civilian.
Physical Struggle: Agents pepper-spray Pretti and tackle him to the pavement. During this "scrum," at least six agents surround and pin him down.
Disarmament: Video analysis shows an agent in a gray jacket reaching into the pile of officers and retrieving a handgun from Pretti’s waistband.
This agent immediately moves away from the group with the weapon in hand.
The Shooting: Approximately one second after the agent in gray emerges with the confiscated firearm, another agent—standing behind Pretti—fires the first of at least ten shots.
Crucially, the evidence suggests that Pretti was disarmed before the fatal shots were fired.
If a court and jurors agree with this description of the incident, it's likely that ICE agents will be held responsible for wrongly shooting and killing Pretti - IMHO.
Your research is biased garbage, everyone has seen the video, your words amount to a narrative retelling to support anti ICE sentiment.
You cannot even get past the first sentence without fail, you honestly accept he was directing traffic, you cannot even be taken seriously. They have video of him earlier kicking in taillights of a federal agent’s vehicle and now you post crap about directing traffic.
You did not post research, you posted propaganda. I am forced to ask, why are you so bent of calling evil good and good evil?
Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
I am a Christian and MAGA. The blow by blow description I gave was not my own but what internet sources provide. Could that description be biased? Absolutely! This is why I said, "IF" the courts and jurors agree with the description.
LEOs have a great responsibility. I support LEOs. What I don't support is giving a LEO carte blanche to shoot people. Kicking out taillights or spitting on or cursing a LEO is not justification for shooting and killing that person. You might disagree but in the end - the law governing the use of deadly force will decide. We'll see.
“”””I don’t speak for him!””””
Your agenda at FR is promoting Rand Paul and his agenda, have you ever met him or talked to him?
Rand Paul is the typical libertarian. Always jousting windmills and picking the wrong hill to die on. He’s not helpful to the Republican party because like Massie who is also a Libertarian he’s not a Republican.
They run as Republicans because they can’t get elected as Libertarians. They are the Cuckoo’s egg that gets laid in the Republican nest.
+1
He’s a contrarian.
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.