nomenym
2hr ago
My brother posted some weird screed on Facebook about how handsome Pretti was compared to the ICE agent who shot him, how healthy Pretti looked, how educated Pretti was compared to the typical ICE agent. Basically implying it was dysgenic to shoot Pretti, except I think eugenics is still considered a no-no. I seriously tried to puzzle out if my brother was in the closet despite having a string of serious girlfriends.
He was likely looking at the AI altered photo circulating that made Pretti look significantly more attractive than he did in the original, so I guess the person who made those doctored images achieved their goal with at least your brother.
In the case of ICE, it seems apparent that we haven't done this work. It is not currently minimising risk nearly as well as it could.
Right, and the absolutely lowest hanging fruit is the cooperation of local authorities and law enforcement. In fact, this alone would likely be enough to satisfy your concerns, since the majority of controversial ICE incidents are occurring in jurisdictions that are not cooperating. Not only are they not cooperating, but local authorities have been encouraging and allegedly even coordinating the chaos. Perhaps ICE still need better training, but that is a longer-term project that is likely to only produce marginal improvements to performance, and it does not necessarily mean they should stop what they're doing. (I suspect higher quality recruits would be better than more training, but that presents other challenges. I suspect the left would heap shame upon any highly competent people who decided to join ICE, because they don't want immigration enforcement to be done better).
Our willingness to tolerate mistakes in law enforcement is proportional to the extent of the criminal problem they are responding to. Personally, I am fine with relaxing standards to address the illegal immigration problem. The "Biden wave" was enormous, and it came after decades of lax enforcement. Making a dent in that problem means acting swiftly, and unfortunately that comes with trade-offs. Up to a point, a per capita increase in mistaken detentions, deportations, or deaths is an acceptable outcome, albeit one that is not welcome. The blame here must land squarely on the people who created the mess in the first place.
Of course, if you don't think illegal immigration is a big problem, or perhaps not a problem at all, then any enforcement is a net negative and no increase in mistakes is acceptable. That is an entirely consistent position.
nomenym
4hr ago
By definition it was an extrajudicial summary execution, as it was a killing that was not sanctioned by the court and he was killed without the benefit of a free and fair trial. He was killed while restrained by multiple government agents.
In other words, not an execution in the way any ordinary person uses that term.
This is just an attempt to spin a narrative to defend the in-group. Government agents killing people in "panicked split-second decisions" does not make it not an execution and does not engender the levels of competency that should/is required by agents of the state. If ICE agents cannot act competently in high stress split second situations then they shouldn't have guns and the power to exercise the state's monopoly on violence.
Then the state should not have a monopoly on violence. There is really no good evidence that ICE or CPB are particularly incompetent compared to other law enforcement agencies, because they are almost unique in being subjected to a very well organized protest and obstruction operation with the tacit (or perhaps even explicit) support of local authorities. Normally, they lean on local law enforcement for help in these kind of situations, but that help has been denied until recently. No matter how well-trained people are, there will always be mistakes, and the number of mistakes will increase in proportion to the number of risky and dangerous situations. This is an isolated demand for competence.
If we applied this logic to the Babbitt shooting, then we should also be disarming and standing down the U.S. Capitol Police. Babbitt was unarmed and, though acting aggressively and belligerently, she was not an immediate deadly threat. She should not have been shot for much the same reason that Pretti should not have been shot. However, with all the chaos and danger of the Jan 6th riots, it was likely that someone somewhere would get shot. For that reason, I don't have much sympathy for Babbitt. Although Lt. Bryd should not have shot, she also bears a lot of responsibility for putting him in a difficult situation. We could just demand more competence from Byrd and hold him entirely responsible, but that only incentivizes more reckless behavior by people like Babbitt.
Unfortunately, I suspect that is the ulterior motive behind these argument. If you can demand infinite competence from law enforcement, if the officer is always held 100% to blame for every bad shoot, then you can exploit that to further your agenda. It creates more incentive for these "protest" groups to insert themselves into dangerous situations to get what they want, because they will never even be held even a little bit accountable should an officer make a mistake. Of course, the alternative where we hold people like Pretti 100% at fault is also unworkable, because it gives too much power to officers that can and will be abused.
nomenym
4hr ago
Okay, presume we've done that already, but some people still get in accidents and die. How do you feel about the repeat drunk driver who dies in a car wreck that wasn't their fault (or at least mostly not their fault)?
Pretti should not have been shot. He was disarmed and not a serious threat at that moment. Unfortunately, it was a highly chaotic situation with protesters doing their best to cause stress and confusion. Pretti was disarmed just a moment before he was shot, and it is unlikely the other officers present knew he had been disarmed. It's quite possible one of the officers called out something like "I've got his gun", but in all the chaos another heard "he's got a gun!"
It was not an execution. It was a panicked split-second decision that proved fatally mistaken. Shooting him multiple times in quick succession is actually evidence of this, since your goal is to quickly and decisively end the threat. You don't shoot once and then wait to see if he can still shoot back before resuming fire, because that's just a good way of getting more people killed. Executions are more deliberate and conservative with ammo.
The video evidence of prior days indicates that Pretti was repeatedly inserting himself into dangerous situations with police while armed. He was indisputably obstructing, not just exercising his first amendment rights. He was intentionally creating circumstances that would give officers a legitimate fear for their life and heighten the chances of one of those officers making a fatal mistake. If you keep playing Russian roulette, you will eventually end up with a bullet in the head.
While the new videos don't change the narrow question of whether the officer should have shot at that moment, it does a lot to change the whole narrative around the shooting and how much blame should be apportioned to the victim himself
How do we feel about repeat drunk drivers who get killed in car wrecks that were someone else's fault?
Restraining them from what? Were they unrestrained until they decided to go to Minnesota? Are they unrestrained in Mississippi where by most accounts they are going about their business without much incident? Where they have been unimpeded they don't seem to need much restraining. I have seen little convincing evidence that ICE has been operating particularly egregiously. There are many stories, but many are misleading when you look into the details. Some mistakes are inevitable, and the problem they are trying to put a dent in is very very big. If they didn't make some mistakes, then I'd know they weren't trying.
I don't like having federal agents out there asking people for their papers; I don't like the idea of having ICE run massive enforcement operations in American cities. I don't like any of it, and I am suspicious of all federal authority. I really would prefer a world where none of this was necessary. I probably would enjoy the company of the vigilantes more than the ICE agents. This is all a clusterfuck at least 30 years in the making, but we are where we are, and the Great Immigration Enforcement Defection cannot go unanswered, and it sucks. It risks major civil conflict that could, in the worst case scenario, spiral into the destruction of the entire union, but that risk is still better than the alternative.
Frankly, I am not sure ICE or the administration has anything to gain by admitting mistakes much less apologizing, because I don't think that would earn them any good faith or leniency. Both sides immediately stake out maximally extreme interpretations of events to see what they can get away with. When push back occurs, both sides quietly shift their arguments but never acknowledge changing their mind about anything. They're essentially bartering, trying to get the best "deal" that serves their interests and goals. Conceding ground on anything just gives your enemy an advantage. Reality is negotiable and truth is for dorks. The right has been learning from the left.
ICE (et al.) do not currently have any credibility that they would act moderately and reasonably.
This is merely a function of what gets reported on. The vast majority of arrests and deportations around the country are conducted peacefully, with fewer officers, and without any bright lights or fanfare. ICE are moderate and reasonable in all places except where they face immoderate and unreasonable opposition.
If the media would report on every altercation where ICE officers professionally deescalated a situation, every instance where they peacefully detained a convicted criminal, or reported all the successful operations conducted with the cooperation of local law enforcement, then ICE would have all the credibility.
There is really very little evidence that ICE is actually doing a bad job, but just that they make mistakes when repeatedly put in very difficult and dangerous scenarios, but would the local police, national guard, or any other law enforcement agency do better in the same circumstances? That is really not clear at all, but the media is making it seem so. The BLM riots killed more than 2 people, and yet very many good people kept supporting those. In fact, one might say they've only killed 2 protesters so far! Is that high or low relative to the circumstances they are working with? I don't really know, but I also know the truth doesn't matter to anyone. The question is just whether those deaths can be used to pursue political goals. ICE are just losing the propaganda war, because they're outmanned and outgunned.
This and the refusal of local authorities to cooperate with ICE has been the main problem all along. Likely that Good and Pretti would both be alive otherwise. This is all about trying to obstruct Federal law enforcement but done in a way with some legal plausible deniability. We all know what they are doing, and they know that we know what they are doing, but all the while they repeat "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" Meanwhile, the media has leaned heavily into the hysterical propaganda, because they've finally seen their opportunity to hurt Trump and are going hard.
They're successfully distracting from the fraud scandal, which is likely to lead to a more general government corruption scandal down the line. There are strong incentives to create as many dangerous situations as possible and blame ICE for whatever happens. It's working very well so far, but I suspect it doesn't have the legs to keep going in the long run. Question is who will blink first--it'll be Trump
When you have lax immigration enforcement for decades, the whole structure of the economy rearranges around the presumption that illegal labor will be available. You can't just pull the rug out from under that in an afternoon. Those kind of structural changes take years to work out. The fault lies with the previous administrations, both red and blue, who intentionally allowed this to happen. Indeed, they were counting on it: "Oh well, I guess we can't deport now! Too costly, too unpleasant". And they are kind of right, because restructuring the economy is painful, and deporting millions is costly and often ugly. Unfortunately, it is necessary to pick and choose your priorities, where progress can be made quickly and where it must be made more slowly.
In principle, I'd like to do what you say, but I think it comes from a place of bad faith. The purpose of that suggestion is to maximize short-run economic pain and suffering, to maximize difficulties with politically influential businesses. The purpose is to make immigration enforcement so painful that it is essentially abandoned altogether, which is the same purpose that is driving things in Minnesota right now.
The pragmatic response is to acknowledge that immigration enforcement needs to proceed with some appreciation for the fact that we have dug ourselves into in a very deep hole. The laws weren't really written for a world where they would be neglected or subverted for decades before finally being enforced, and they would likely have been written quite differently had that circumstance been taken into account.
nomenym
4d ago
There is definitely an element of revenge and signaling. There is a lot of cruelty, neglect, and betrayal in enabling mass illegal immigration for decades. This is not counted, but it is felt by many. They are angry, and they want to see cold and harsh enforcement; they want no quarter to be given and if a few troublesome protestors die that is more than a price they're willing to pay. If they allow ICE to fail because it's hard and upsetting, then they lose their country.
nomenym
4d ago
Some bloodshed is priced into immigration law enforcement, especially after decades of intentionally lax enforcement. Of course, the alternative is not 'no bloodshed', but just different victims in different places and a net increase in bloodshed overall. The rest is propaganda.
nomenym
11d ago
I presume she fantasized about using lethal violence and ICE agents, and that she would realize those fantasies if given sufficient permission structure by society. She surely held a general malice towards ICE, as presumably most ICE agents do towards these types of protesters. I still think it unlikely that she meant to drive into him at that moment. I doubt she was capable of the 3d spatial awareness necessary to clip him just enough to hurt but not seriously injure. Mostly I think it was woman driver not correctly perceiving how big her vehicle was and how it would accelerate on a slippery road.
nomenym
12d ago
I guess this is precisely why the Trump admin is heavily discounting their importance. Many European allies are like a rapidly depreciating currency. By the time you try to cash them in, they're going to be worthless.
She was an agitator trying to cause trouble and he was a stressed out ICE agent dealing with a hostile crowd. When threatened with the possibility of arrest for obstructing law enforcement, she hit the gas. Why? Don't know, though someone (her wife?) yelled at her to drive, so maybe it was just that. She was not attempting to kill or assault the ICE agent and may not have even realized that she would hit him. The ICE agent, meanwhile, was not just idly standing in front of her vehicle, but rather walking around it when she started to move. He was likely especially concerned about being hit and dragged by the vehicle, since it had happened to him once already. She did strike him, but not in a manner which was seriously life threatening, but in that split second the ICE agent had the possibly unreasonable belief that his life was in danger and his reflexes did the rest.
Had the vehicle been moving a little faster or had made a more direct impact, then his life might really have been in danger. Had he been two more steps to the side then she would have missed him entirely and would not have been shot. These interactions presumably happen frequently for ICE, but the vast majority of the time people get lucky and nobody gets seriously hurt. Although she was violating the law and creating a dangerous situation, she obviously did not deserve to die and it's a genuine tragedy that she did. She should not have been there and the people who organize these "protests" need to be stopped. If the ICE agent could reload a previous save game and try again, then I'm pretty sure he would not to pull the trigger.
He was not a sadistic murderer and she was not a dangerous terrorist attempting to murder ICE agents. Both of them probably privately fantasized about lethal violence against the other side.
The broader issue is that many parts of the country appear to not want to be subject to immigration law and are in open defiance against it.
nomenym
21d ago
I kind of feel about this like I do about Ashley Babbit. It was a bad shoot, but she willfully created a situation that made a bad shoot highly likely. A tragedy, but not unlikely when you try to interfere with law enforcement activity. She was doing what she thought was right, and the officer was attempting to do his duty. Will she become a martyr? Frankly, if Minnesota thinks illegal immigrants should not be deported, then we need border controls around Minnesota.
Frankly, this is the kind of thing that would have resulted in pogroms at any other time in history. Same with the Pakistani rape gangs in the UK; the parallels are striking. Something very drastic needs to happen here, though Minnesotans are not capable of anything like an actual pogrom. Can there be some kind of polite and peaceful alternative that basically achieves the same goals without lots of violence? I can't really see a viable road back from here; the whole system is complicit, locked in, and ideologically committed to its own naivety because the alternative is too terrible to even contemplate.
nomenym
1mo ago
Or it could also just be to reduce suspicion that they were prostitutes, to not be so obvious about it. Seems likely that not everybody knew what was happening. A fig leaf of plausible deniability.
He was in the process of being restrained, but he was not actually restrained. If he had a gun, which he did for the majority of the altercation, then he could have drawn it.
If you didn't know he had been disarmed and you had mistaken reason to believe he was/had drawing/drawn a weapon, then yes you can shoot in self-defense. Shooting him in the back is irrelevant, because once you decide he is an imminent threat, you don't wait for him to turnaround and get the first shot. You shoot and you keep shooting to decisively eliminate the threat. Self-defense has to do with the perceived threat. You are in no real danger if someone draws a replica gun on you and threatens to shoot, but you can still act in self-defense if you don't know that it's a replica. The question is how reasonable was the perception of threat, and that is unfortunately a kind of squishy concept where law enforcement is usually given the benefit of the doubt.
For me, the Pretti shooting is an edge-case, even moreso than the Good shooting. I think the officer who shot first needs to be reprimanded in some fashion, but exactly how depends on details that cannot be gleaned from the videos. Firstly, it has to do with how much danger the officer thought he was in at that moment, not whether his evaluation of the danger was correct. Secondly, presuming his evaluation of the danger was incorrect, does that error rise to the level of criminal negligence? These questions are not easily answered by watching the videos.
More options
Context Copy link