Elemi, I have no idea if this video of a protestor kicking out the tail light of an ICE vehicle is Pretti or not. And honestly even if it was, so what, then arrest the dude for vandalism. But for you to justify his murder because he kicked a tail light 11 days prior is just insane, wow, that shows a lack of empathy and morals.
I did not justify anything, so no need to call me something. The guy (even according to reports in mainstream media) has been identified by Pretti's family of being him. He has not just similar clothing and also a gun...
My post was about how he had been presented in public: Peaceful nurse, who was more or less a bystander and wanted to help etc. No. -He was clearly one of the "protesters" who searched for active interference with the ICE operations. He spit on their car, destroyed the light, etc. That tells a lot about his general attitude. This is not peaceful protest. This is something else. It does shine a different light at this situation. He takes a gun into a situation where he might resist (or even attack, like on the 11th, the cops). That is not clever. That might lead to complex, unpredictable, unwanted situations. Resisting/interfering physically + gun + permanent noise + gunshot + chaos + icy road underground - all those factors will play a role in the evaluation of these few seconds in which the incident happened ... Who is guilty? The one who fired first? The one who took the gun away and forgot to notice the others a second before Pretti reached for it and just took the spare magazine out?
At the end it is a court decision. After getting more information about the whole Pretti case, I had to change my viewpoint. With the first video, it seemed quite clear that the cops overreacted. But knowing a shot might have been fired accidentally from Pretti's gun. This changes a lot. -It might have been an accident/reasonably misinterpreted situation.
My point is, it does not matter what he did prior to this event. Who cares? It is not relevent. Nor is what anyone tries to portray him as. I don't care what people think if him or even if he is a good or bad guy. Or a criminal, or anything else. The law doe not allow agents to shoot people in the back when there is not threat.
I saw all the video angles on this event and he did noting but film the agents with his cell phone. He never brandished his weapon, he only tried to help the two ladies. The rage agent took him down for helping the woman the agent pushed. Then four others dog piled him. His hands were in front of him with agents on him, no way for him to draw a weapon from his backside. The agent who shot first was standing there watching the others. He was clearly watching the other agent walk up try to pull Pretti's leg out to make him drop to his stomach. he did not succeed. But then she saw Pretti's legal carry licensed weapon, and removed it. the shooter watched all of that, then drew his weapon after the agent removed the gun, then he started shooting him in the back. All the other agents freaked out and scattered because they did not know who was shooting. Pretti reached to his back because he was shot three times in the back.
Even if he still had his gun on him, which he did not, then trying to reach for it after being shot in the back many times would be a natural way to survive. What do you think the 2nd amendment is for? It is to defend yourself from wrongful attempts on your life.