At some point I will be posting additional information being released about the recent shooting in MPLS, but I wanted to deal with a related issue first and separately.
Much has been made of the fact that Pretti held a carry permit and was legally allowed to carry concealed in MN. While I have no first hand knowledge of this, I am accepting it as True. Where this has become a problem is that it's being seized on by people who vehemently oppose the very notion of people being legally allowed to carry a gun, and by those who would prefer that the 2A not exist and that all guns be confiscated in an attempt to prove a point. I'll address this from two perspectives.
1. The 2A is an "inalienable right" guaranteed in the constitution, and affirmed multiple times by SCOTUS. It is the law of the land. So I 100% agree that Pretti had an absolute 2A right to own a firearm (in this case a literal "military grade" firearm, with a multiple "high capacity magazines"), I also recognize that the right to own a gun comes with responsibilities. I would humbly suggest that carrying a gun when interfering with federal law enforcement probably isn't the most responsible thing to do.
2. In MN there is a fairly involved process to go through before being granted a permit to carry. As a part of the required class work, an inordinate amount of time is spent on three things. First, the requirement to have both ID and your permit card on your person when carrying a gun. Second, how to interact with law enforcement if you are carrying a legally concealed gun on your person or in your car. They spend a lot of time on this one, I thought it was excessive but I may have been wrong. Third, the responsibility that comes with choosing to carry and the consequences that may be involved if you do make that choice. In short, the class was much less about the right/privilege of owning/carrying a gun and much more about the responsibilities that one shoulders of one chooses to do so. The simple reality of carrying a gun in public is that you are making a positive choice (and jumping through hoops to do so) that could result in you shooting and wounding or killing another human. This is not something to be engaged in lightly, although many do. Carrying a concealed weapon is an acceptance of being held to a higher standard of conduct, and increased responsibility over those who choose not to. One final part of the process involves the choice of what gun one wants to carry. I'd argue that choosing to carry a gun with a well known history of problems with accidental discharge into a confrontation with law enforcement was simply one more poor choice in this scenario.
On a related note, the local rabble rousers here in MSP spent a couple of weeks flooding social media with "How To" graphics regarding interacting with ICE or other law enforcement. One salient feature was the admonition to avoid actually interfering with law enforcement.
So what we end up with as we evaluate the Pretti situation (regardless of the additional information that is coming out) is the realization that Pretti chose to ignore what he learned in his carry class, and to ignore the advice of the protest experts. Clearly, his choices to ignore what he'd been taught had horrible consequences.
Finally, I find it hilarious that the anti-gun ASPL has set aside it's opposition to civilians owning "military grade" weapons, to "high capacity" magazines, to concealed carry, to guns not intended for "hunting", and for gun ownership itself in order to beatify this guy who went against all of those deeply held convictions. Just because it helps them score some temporary political points. The colossal irony of a bunch of people who fought to deny people like Pretti the ability to carry an gun, defending the role his choice to do so (and to ignore his training) is lost on those who should be most aware of it. That Pretti will, at some point, be used as a poster boy to end carry or gun ownership seems to be a given.
17 comments:
Good post. It must never be forgotten or dismissed how much is own behavior led to his demise. But it's Standard Operating Procedure for the marxist left (like Dan) to blame the good guys for the unfortunate and permanent consequences of the bad choices and behaviors of the actual bad guys. And yeah...when one obstructs LE in the righteous commission of their sworn duties, one has chosen to become the bad guy.
The vast majority of the vocal ASPL spends all sorts of time loudly asserting their rights with little or no thought to the responsibilities that go with those rights.
Beyond that, there is a deep and abiding ignorance regarding gun laws and the 2A. Now that one of their (remember that violence is anathema to the ASPL) own is the victim of his choices under both of those laws, they've become 2A/CCW scholars overnight. That they misrepresent all sorts of important things or don't really believe any of the bullshit they're spouting (99% of the most vocal supporters of his "right to bear arms" would abolish that right in a heartbeat of given the chance) is ignored as they revel in their inconsistency.
The simple fact is that he he been arrested, he'd have been charged with several felonies.
Unless I've missed something, Bovino has been reassigned.
Administrative leave is the standard procedure in an officer involved shooting, It in no way implies guilt or wrongdoing.
You can fantasize all you want. The difference between you and the GOP people who want the proper process to be followed, is that you will never accept any conclusion that doesn't fit your narrative.
Damn, you just couldn't stop the abortion, could you?
1. We absolutely DO NOT have "Video tape footage".
2. The video that we do have is hardly clear cut and leaves plenty of room for ambiguity.
3. There is a reason that the legal standard for these kinds of shootings is what it is, and that reason is especially important now.
4. The woman was interfering with ICE enforcement operations/resisting.
5. The "good Samaritan" narrative isn't holding up well the more background we get. FYI, there was no "protest" before the shooting, just a few people being directed to locations of ICE enforcement operations to interfere.
6. Yes, he did get his rib broken by ICE for interfering previously, and came back with his "military grade" gun and multiple "high capacity" magazines to get revenge? (If you can fantasize, I can fantasize)
7. Did I mention that there was no "protest" before he walked into the street and began interfering with traffic, and peacefully attacking the agents?
8. Well, I knew that the lies and slander were coming. FWIW I don't agree that the "terrorist" label is probably appropriate, but as we've learned he was part of an organized group dedicated to interfering with ICE enforcement operations. Interfering is a felony, resisting/battery could go either way, but having an organized system to plan when and where to commit felonies sounds like conspiracy to me.
9. Except NO ONE IS DEFENDING MURDER you absolute freaking idiot. You're just making that up as if you saying it makes it True. The rest of us aren't in a rush to judgement and will take ALL of the evidence into account.
1). Again with the slander. Rittenhouse was a completely different set of circumstances, one of which was that the actual law enforcement apparatus had removed themselves from the rioting, and he was literally attacked with a deadly weapon.
If reality matters so much, why spend so little time actually engaged with reality?
But I do appreciate the double standard.
Because of multiple examples of refusing to follow one of the few simple rules Dan has brought onto himself due to his lack of self control. It'll give him something else to whine about because setting clear standards, showing grace for multiple violations, then finally following through with the promised consequences is a concept the seems foreign to him.
Not only was Rittenhouse attacked by the very same type of assholes obstructing justice in MN, he was running toward the police, and after making his way through assholes attempting to cause him harm ( the last guy actually tried to shoot him), he finally got to the cops and surrendered himself and his weapon. That's what "decent and moral" looks like.
Craig:
I would humbly suggest that carrying a gun when interfering with federal law enforcement probably isn't the most responsible thing to do.
Looking back, I see at least two instances where you cite Kyle Rittenhouse who killed people and got away with it due to "second amendment." In NEITHER of those posts where THIS KID ACTUALLY KILLED PEOPLE WITH A RIFLE HE WAS OPENLY BRANDISHING did you say anything like, "it wasn't the most responsible thing to do..."
You're not opposed to people having guns, you are thereby establishing, you're just trying to suggest that it's a reason you might legitimately be openly attacked and killed IF YOU'RE NOT A CONSERVATIVE.
You really don't understand the whole apples to apples thing, do you?
Rittenhouse was a completely different situation and has virtually nothing in common with Pretti except that they both had guns.
You seem to be suggesting that choosing to (now multiple times) impede a group of law enforcement officers while carrying a weapon IS a responsible thing to do. Bizarre.
I suspect that the problem is that you have either not read what I've written, chosen to ignore or forget parts of what I've written, or pretend that I do not have the knowledge that I have.
In this specific case, the issue is Pretti choosing to ignore what he was taught in his carry permit class when it comes to dealing with law enforcement when legally carrying.
For someone who prates on about "due process", your ignorance is suggesting that Rittenhouse "got away" with something is confusing and disturbing. The state of WI (and the feds) had their shot at him through the legal system and they failed to prove their claims because the evidence did not support the charges.
As for your last sentence of incoherent rambling, I have no idea what your point is (or if there even is a point). I 100% support the right of people to have and carry guns lawfully. I also 100% acknowledge that doing so carries with it some incredibly significant responsibilities (which are heavily stresses in carry classes), and the Pretti chose to ignore those responsibility.
Given the increasing evidence of Pretti's violent tendencies and previous attacks on ICE, I (personally) wouldn't think that carrying a gun into a situation that was likely to become volatile and physical was a good choice. He made the choice, and his choice didn't end the way he probably wanted to.
The Rittenhouse parallel is one more false equivalence which people like Dan want to use to accomplish a political purpose.
Had Rittenhouse (or any of the ICE agents) been killed, they wouldn't care. If anything they'd use their deaths to push the agenda.
I'd be surprised if Danny read this:
https://patriotpost.us/articles/124642
https://patriotpost.us/articles/124642
Dan doesn't pay attention to anything outside of his silo. Truth in the wrong medium isn't of interest to him.
Rittenhouse carried a rifle because "decent moral progressives" were burning down Kenosha. He came to protect the businesses of the citizens of Kenosha against violent thugs protesting myth. His actual use of the weapon was self-defense to thwart direct attacks against him by "decent moral progressives", at least two of whom had criminal records. He didn't go to Kenosha with a weapon to obstruct LE. He went to obstruct "decent moral progressives" from destroying Kenosha.
Art, why are you interrupting Dan's fantasies with these bothersome facts. But don't forget that the "decent moral progressives" in city government had abdicated their responsibility to stop the other DMPs from running amok, burning, looting, and attacking Rittenhouse himself. This is why it is completely insane to believe that the police/government will protect you from crime. Just like Frey, they let the city burn.
I am not sure about the etiquette for being a peaceful, law, abiding protester, but it seems to me That spray, painting, private property with vulgar, obscene, slogans might be something that was discouraged. Maybe I’m wrong and destruction of private property or damage to private property, is perfectly acceptable.
Yeah...Dan's unsupported fantasies are likely his opinion, so it's OK.
Are death threats just accepted as normal among the ASPL? Does it matter if they’re on social media or spray painted on other people’s property?
Are death threats the new nvda?
Post a Comment