Lawful but Tragic

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The Renee Good case was clear-cut self-defense. Objectively, she hit the accelerator when her tires were pointed directly at the officer. If the officer had complete omnipotence he would still have been justified in using deadly force.

The Pretti case is different. It still looks like lawful self-defense, but in this case, if the officers were omnipotent, they would NOT have fired. But from the perception of the individual officer in the moment, all they know is that they are dealing with an agitator who has 1) aggressively confronted a federal law enforcement officer 2) unlawfully interfered in an arrest of a third party and 3) violently resisted arrest. And then the officer hears “gun gun gun.” We don’t know exactly what that officer was seeing at the time; maybe the body cam video will be probative, maybe not. But the officer is allowed to rely on the perceptions of his colleagues combined with his own, so if he heard “gun gun gun” and saw Pretti reach for his waist that’s a lawful shoot even if the officer was mistaken.

Will Chamberlain @willchamberlain
Posted on X, January 26, 2026

He meant “omniscient”, not “omnipotent”.

There is at least one video I have seen that appears to show the officer who took Petti’s gun had an AD with it as he was walking away. This, as you might expect, appears to have initiated the shooting of Petti.

If true, it will almost certainly result in it being a lawful, tragic shooting.

Share

49 thoughts on “Lawful but Tragic”

  1. “There is at least one video I have seen that appears to show the officer who took Petti’s gun had an AD with it as he was walking away. This, as you might expect, appears to have initiated the shooting of Petti.

    If true, it will almost certainly result in it being a lawful, tragic shooting.”

    This opens a door to ***horrible*** abuses, even if all the officers involved in *this specific case* acted in good faith.

    Of course, the problem is that I can’t think of any way to close it without opening another door for ***horrible*** abuses, just in the other direction.

    Ugh. At least the officer who had the AD should be prosecuted for it. That would be *SOMETHING* to make it less “get to shoot people for free”.

    • Excellent point. But it does require two or more conspirators to be reliable. Which makes it less likely to be kept a secret.

    • Prosecuted for what?

      He was in a violent confrontation with an armed person. He disarmed that person by taking from him a weapon. The agent is not expected to be an expert on the use of every weapon in existence. But we have no evidence that he attempted to manipulate that weapon in any manner.

      What we see is him leaving the immediate vicinity of the suspect and the struggle. Smart – get the weapon out of play. And then it *maybe* discharges. Again – what are you going to prosecute him for? Grabbing the weapon incorrectly? That would immediately end any police officer attempting to keep a weapon away from a suspect – they will just have to shoot them instead. Hello law of unintended consequences…..

      • “Prosecuted for what?”

        In most jurisdictions in the country, an accidental discharge in city limits is a crime. Literally, prosecute him for the AD.

        That is what would happen to any citizen who had an AD for essentially any reason in most “blue” jurisdictions, after all.

        Yes, if it is truly all in good faith, that sucks. But the other option (the guy is dead through no direct fault of his own, and NO ONE pays any penalty for it) is worse.

        ” That would immediately end any police officer attempting to keep a weapon away from a suspect – they will just have to shoot them instead.”

        The penalty for AD is much, much lower than for shooting someone.

        • In most jurisdictions there is a penalty for running red lights and speeding – but law officers get to do those things in the course of their duties……

          The ‘penalty’ you propose would result in more people being shot because the police would not even touch the guns the people have – and then the people make the slightest move with their hand towards the gun – boom. Justified shooting.You aren’t thinking that through very well.

          “the guy is dead through no direct fault of his own”

          The guy is dead because he was flipping stupid, went to fight with the cops while carrying a gun and got into a situation where once the cops knew he had a gun, there was an extremely limited set of movements he could make that would not result in him getting shot. Hint – flailing around on the ground fighting a bunch of cops almost always results in your hands moving in such a way that a reasonable person would think you were reaching for that gun that that reasonable person just saw on your hip.

          This shooting is awful – but I disagree with the quote in the post – there is even less question of whether this shooting was justified. There is very little doubt, legally. that a reasonable officer in that pile could have had a legitimate fear that justified the use of deadly force. There are multiple supreme court cases elucidating almost that exact scenario.

          • “The guy is dead because he was flipping stupid”

            Oh, absolutely. He definitely did the FA, then he FO.

            But *IF* the facts are ordered as we currently believe (the cops *took possession* of his gun), then this shoot looks a LOT worse.

            And *IF* there was an AD that lead to his shooting, *HE* didn’t do the thing that caused his own shooting. I would like perps getting shot to be their own reason they were shot just absolutely as often as possible. Anything else opens up abuses.

            An AD the perp *didn’t do* should not justify him getting shot, and that goes about quintuple if the one who did the AD is one of the police officers – “One of my teammates fired a gun, so I am justified in killing you” is bad. That’s a ***VERY VERY VERY *** bad way to run things.

            Might be the least bad (certainly, there are actors in this tragedy actively trying to make it worse than that), but I hope not. I hope we can find something that sucks less than that.

  4. If the officer who handled Petti’s pistol during the process of detaining / arresting him had a negligent discharge with it, they bear some responsibility. At least a letter of reprimand in their file for mishandling a pistol in an unsafe manner so that the negligent discharge occurred. Petti bears the vast majority of responsibility for his multiple poor decisions. If you’re going to protest, do it peacefully. If you think you may have hands put on you by an officer during civil unrest leave your firearms at home or secured in your vehicle unless things are so dire that you PLAN to use them in a conflict against officers. In which case you’re a moron because you brought a handgun to a rifle fight

      • They were peaceful protests, as far as the armed protesters participating went, so being armed was fine

          • “Yah, those J6 protests were super peaceful.”

            Far more than the “mostly peaceful protests” by the left all the previous year.

            But that’s irrelevant to the point, as the J6 people did indeed NOT HAVE GUNS.

            Despite what the FBI itself has called “the largest operation in their history”, they managed to charge 2 people with *having* firearms that day, one from someone noticing the shape of it beneath the clothes and one from stuff that was said to a family member.

            No interactions with the police, no brandishing, no threatening, NOTHING. They looked HARD, and that’s all they could find.

            I get that J6 is your magic words comeback on anything related to “protesting”, no matter how ridiculous, but in this case, it fits *even worse than usual*.

            Also, that link you left is from January 7th and, to put it charitably, has several factual errors. It is not a good reference, from a purely factual standpoint.

            For only the most egregious error, Rosanne Boyland didn’t die from being trampled, she was beaten to death by a police officer. The video of her being beaten unconscious *and then beaten some more* is public. The officer in question committed murder, no question, but hey, it was a MAGA person, so no complaints from the likes of you, eh?

  5. How many have to be killed before the left does not gain an advantage from each death by celebrating them as martyrs?

    • I’m guessing you were fishing for this reply. I will oblige although I strongly disagree with the conclusion; “One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.” Joseph Stalin, Communist mass murderer.

      Mi General Augusto Pinochet says it should only require helicopter rides for less than 100,000 totalitarian scumbags to clean up the current mess if the proper selections are made

  6. “Lawful but Tragic”.
    Not really.
    He was a communist enemy combat that went out looking for a fight. Armed.
    Against law enforcement that were executing lawful orders.
    I’m glad they got him before he got around to doing something really stupid. And the more I think on it. The more this whole kerfuffle seems “Pretti stupid”.
    As he’s a good commie now.

    • People desirous of removing illegal immigrants would be better served if Petti had been humiliated. Perhaps given three seconds of attention and left whimpering on the ground and covered head to toe with a marking dye and pepper spray. Or perhaps prosecuted, convicted, paid a heavy fine, and spent many months in jail. Losing his job and suffering lifetime economic harm. As a dead martyr, he is a motivator to others to increase the violence and makes the agents targets for suffering economic harm and increasing danger.

      • “Perhaps given three seconds of attention and left whimpering on the ground and covered head to toe with a marking dye and pepper spray. Or perhaps prosecuted, convicted, paid a heavy fine, and spent many months in jail. Losing his job and suffering lifetime economic harm”

        The first would be just as good as martyrdom, as far as the left is concerned, and the other two options are off the table, in terms of actual things that might happen in Minnesota today.

        • The prosecution would be by the feds.

          The first option would be considered just by far more people. Also, it does not impair the effectiveness of the feds. It probably would even improve their morale.

          • “The prosecution would be by the feds.”

            That helps with the “charging” part, but the track record of the federal judicial system, especially in the “blue” areas (where this would have to happen) is not much better, if at all.

      • Agreed, 100%.
        But that didn’t happen. Better or worse. What happened, happened.
        We know communists don’t stop. And if he isn’t dead, he will be plotting your/our deaths.
        There is no living with these people. They won’t leave you alone. They won’t stop till they’re stopped.
        Martyrs or no.
        If he wasn’t put down by the police, he would have been put down by some patriot later.
        To me it’s all about timing.
        And as for dead communists, the sooner the better.

        • Assuming being “put down” is the morally justified “solution,” then it should be done by someone who does not get caught. The conspiracy theories and doubt about false flag versus “Gestopo” responsibility would mute the advantage given to the left over his death.

          • The left only has the advantage you give them through the discussion.
            They don’t need any more motivation to do anything. They need you to give up.
            In fact, allowing a communist to continue only escalates the situation.
            That’s why the regular police aren’t allowed to arrest them. And when they are, they get kicked back out on the street.
            Pretti was a communist foot-soldier. And if he didn’t get put down. (By whom ever/how-ever). Would he have lived long enough to get around to shooting the police first?
            Maybe be the one that kneels your family down in front of a ditch?
            I don’t know.
            But I do know that’s where communism always goes.
            He’s dead. Right, wrong, indifferent.
            I choose indifferent.
            Just like they do every time it’s one of us.
            ICE-2, Communist invasion? 1,000’s and counting.
            They call him a martyr.
            I call him an example.

          • The gain advantage via noise and numbers whether I have a discussion or not. I prefer they be humiliated in the eyes of the general public than mass slaughter. It looks better in the history books. And I think, in generational terms, it is a more permanent solution. Killing them can be interpreted as they had a winning argument and had to killed to win the “discussion.”

          • Once again, 100% totally agree.
            It would be nicer having them all chop cane in Cuba for the rest of their life’s. Adjudged and forgotten. Properly.
            But in the meantime if a communist foot-soldier decides to do something “Pretti stupid” and ends up dead in the process?
            I’m not going to react the way the communists want me to.
            They’ve been at war with us for 75+ years now. (just ask them).
            And having a discussion with them is all good. But not when they get to control it.
            So refuse to buy they’re premises. Nor act in the manner they demand.
            Cause that’s how they treat us.
            All’s fair in war. Just ask a communist.(Although he might have to be drunk to admit it.)

          • If you find yourself in a fair fight for your life, you are doing it wrong.

            As a footnote, it is at least 125 years in the U.S. Read some newspapers from the early 1920s.

            I’m not trying to get you to fight fair. I’m trying to get you and others to fight smart.

  7. A Facebook post reminded me that while we’re here arguing the nuances of Pretti’s shooting, Trump is still hiding the Epstein files because he and the others in them will be destroyed if they’re all released.

    https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1GZkgo2Aba/

    It’s all just a distraction from that.

    Wag the Dog.

    A sample from the post:

    “I’m sorry to tell you this and even now a tiny part of me hopes that I’m wrong. But what happened on that island and on those farms will be an ultimate evil: Gang rapes. Murders. Orgies with children. Snuff films. CHILDREN TORTURED. Animals. Beatings and strangulations TO DEATH.
    We must confront this head on, as a nation and as a planet.
    But this will be a war.
    These criminals are obscenely wealthy and there are no boundaries on what they will do to protect themselves.
    They will kill to protect themselves.
    Without a second thought.
    I know this is way too long. But those of us with the “knowledge” must speak out.
    Trump’s the most cartoonish example of all this, but lots of them are like that but with more impulse control.
    This administration is part of this international depravity ring.
    Our government is in the hands of baby-raping serial killers, but in suits.
    They know it is bad. They know the truth will destroy them.
    Let’s make sure it does.”

    • [quote]A Facebook post reminded me that while we’re here arguing the nuances of Pretti’s shooting, Trump is still hiding the Epstein files because he and the others in them will be destroyed if they’re all released.

      https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1GZkgo2Aba/ [/quote]

      You said what?

      The Department of Justice today published over 3 million additional pages responsive to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was signed into law by President Trump on November 19, 2025.
      https://tinyurl.com/mf9wxv2u

      • You mean the Transparency Act that said they were to have released the files by Dec. 19? The files that they’ve still not released all of (current estimates are 50%)? The files that they’ve illegally redacted to cover up mechanisms by which money was moved around and presumably more? (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/23/us/politics/epstein-files-redactions-doj.html)

        If you think the fully weaponized DOJ isn’t just an arm of Trump’s will, covering up everything it possibly can, I have some beachfront property in Wyoming to sell you.

        • So, Massa Johnny, your pissed -off that some hypocritical politician is playing politics against the way your hypocritical politicians think he should?
          And if he continues in his political hypocrisy we should all move to support your hypocritical politicians, politics?
          Or maybe your just a communist slaver trying to keep your grift alive?

    • Let’s change the topic to something I can make up about Trump!

      Seriously, on the politician scale, Trump has the HIGH GROUND on the Epstein thing – threw him off his properties, told him to never come back the FIRST time stuff came out about him.

      But you’re so VERY VERY VERY sure that Trump just HAS to be in there, because…. um, because…. um… magic that makes your hatred come true?

      With all the OTHER stuff the Democrats did to try to “get Trump”, all the norms they destroyed, all the laws they broke, all the lies they told… and they didn’t use this? That is the best possible proof that Trump ISN’T in there.

      • It’s not me who’s changing the subject, it’s Trump. This is all just a Wag The Dog attempt at distraction. Even Joe Rogan sees that now.

        You should read the actual files that have been released (to the extent the FBI’s coverup redactions will allow it). Not that I expect you, or any Republican will, because then you’ll be in the same position as the Catholic church, having to deal with obvious pedophilia to start with, and then in the case of Epstein much, much worse, which would force you into admitting you’re following a monster, and that’s not something you’ll ever be willing to do.

        And again, if Trump wasn’t in there in a way that was compromising, we’d have had these files back when he was elected, just like he promised, over a year ago. Remember that?

        I’ll believe Trump isn’t a pedo only if all the files are released, with only the lawful redactions, and we can see who did what at Epstein’s parties, and he isn’t one of them. Thus far the files and testimony of women who’ve come forward (mind you don’t listen to them, I’m sure they’re just actors, or whatever the latest conspiracy thinking is) all indicates Trump did a bunch of really horrible stuff, and the only reason he’s not in prison is because he’s too useful as a signature on more Project 2025 orders.

        But sure, let’s just keep insisting nothing happened and it’s all made up. It took the Catholics decades and a bunch of lawsuits to admit they’d been covering up rampant sexual abuse, it’ll be interesting to see how long it takes the Republicans.

        • “It’s not me who’s changing the subject, it’s Trump”

          Literally, it’s you. We’re talking about the Pretti incident, and you’re like, “Hey, since my points about Pretti were all BS, let’s talk about some other made up BS about Trump, instead.”

          “I’ll believe Trump isn’t a pedo only if all the files are released, with only the lawful redactions, and we can see who did what at Epstein’s parties, and he isn’t one of them.”

          No, you won’t, not even then. Reality doesn’t matter to you.

          “But sure, let’s just keep insisting nothing happened and it’s all made up.”

          See, there are a *FEW* differences, there. With the Catholic church sex scandal, there were people claiming to be victims, with dates, times, places, and other witnesses placing them in those times and places.

          With Trump, literally no one has done that, and the ones who were there and have been asked about it all said he wasn’t involved.

          You have literally nothing other than your own need to believe that he was involved, DESPITE the evidence.

          Well, and the bad fakes and really crappy dishonest innuendos that Democrats use to lie to people, like when the black out the faces on some females in a picture and try to make him look bad, and then other people have to go find the already-public photo (with the faces NOT blacked out) to point out that it is a lie. That gets tiresome.

          • “there were people claiming to be victims, with dates, times, places, and other witnesses placing them in those times and places. With Trump, literally no one has done that, and the ones who were there and have been asked about it all said he wasn’t involved.”

            Really? Wikipedia has a whole article collecting women who’ve sued him for sexual assault:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

            And that’s not even up to date with the latest tranche of Epstein docs, which includes allegations that he raped a 14 year old, among other things.

            https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-allegations-in-new-epstein-files-release-read-in-full-11444530

            But I’m sure that’s just a misunderstanding, along with the other hundreds of other citations in the files. He’s pure as the driven snow, and it’s all just a big con job.

            If this were Biden, you’d be screaming for his head. But since you really really want Project 2025 to be fully implemented, you know you can’t do that with Trump.

            I’d at least have some inclination to think you were being rational about this if you admitted he’s dirty, independent of whether he’s a literal rapist. But all I hear is “nope, nothing to see here, folks, just move along, move along” and I think there’s no reason to believe you’re even trying to look at reality.

          • “Really? Wikipedia has a whole article collecting women who’ve sued him for sexual assault:”

            Change the subject AGAIN! YAY! (Do we need to start “everybody drink” when you do that?) That’s not Epstein. I never claimed he was some paragon of virtue (he isn’t). I will note that none of them push for charges, just money… doesn’t mean they are all lying, of course, it just makes it look that way.

            “And that’s not even up to date with the latest tranche of Epstein docs, which includes allegations that he raped a 14 year old, among other things.”

            That’s because they are releasing *EVERYTHING*, following the law as best they can, despite your claim they aren’t (you can’t both go through bajillions of documents to remove victims names AND have it all done in too short a time to actually do that), even the stuff that is obviously false.

            Unless yet another one has dropped, that particular claim doesn’t pass the smell test, the straight face test, or any other test, which is why only the most ridiculously, blatantly, and dishonestly partisans are using it. No one who wants any credibility with anybody ever is mentioning that one (even the crazy talking heads who already have no credibility) because it’s so obviously fake.

            But they are releasing it anyway, because they are following the law. Maybe the left could try that some time, just for something different to do.

            Hmm, double-checking, the one I was thinking of was 13, not 14 – that’s the one that, right before the 2016 election, filed a lawsuit then dropped it, just to make the allegation for political purposes.

            “I’d at least have some inclination to think you were being rational about this if you admitted he’s dirty, independent of whether he’s a literal rapist. ”

            No, you wouldn’t, because I have. Repeatedly. Well, depending on your definition of “dirty”, I suppose.

            The guy looks REALLY good on the politician scale… but that’s grading on the world’s steepest curve. He’s pushed every legal thing to the limit in business, many times, screwing over his business partners and his customers. He’s cheated on his wife… and the next wife… etc.

            In terms of actual crimes, though, short of being convicted of time travel in New York (literally – he was convicted of doing something “to influence an election”, but the election in question was already over when he did it), there are no CRIMINAL things to tar him with, just lots (and lots) of scummy, unethical things. He even keeps complying with obviously wrong lower-level court rulings that get bench-slapped 9-0 because everyone knows they are BS.

            He’s easily the most-investigated President in the history of this country, and IN COMPARISON to most, he comes out looking quite good. I wish he actually looked good on his own without the comparison (he doesn’t), but I’ll be happy with what I can get.

          • You’re right, I have a hard time focusing on a particular set of Trump’s crimes, because there are so many. I’ll be sure and buy you a bottle.

            “there are no CRIMINAL things to tar him with, just lots (and lots) of scummy, unethical things”

            This is some new definition of “criminal” I’m unfamiliar with. He’s on the hook for raping E. Jean Carroll to the tune of $83 million, he was convicted of 34 counts of fraud but is getting off as a result of getting into the White House, and the Epstein docs haven’t even begun to be litigated. (Epstein conveniently “committed suicide” just a week after talking about cooperating with the feds, so it’s all going to take a lot longer. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/31/epstein-lawyers-discussed-cooperation)

            But I’m encouraged that you at least are using the term “scummy.” It doesn’t really cover it, but it’s better than the MAGA cultists who won’t even go that far.

          • “He’s on the hook for raping E. Jean Carroll to the tune of $83 million”

            1) he literally sued a major network for saying that, and they gave him millions of dollars over it, as even that ridiculous jury didn’t say he “raped” her.

            2) That particular lawsuit is in the running for the most ridiculous of the many against Trump – “He raped me in a dressing room in a major store and nobody noticed, but I can’t give you a date or even a year that it happened,” says the woman who has also publicly stated that rape can be “sexy”.

            3) She said he “raped” her, and the jury didn’t believe her (they said he didn’t), but they still gave her money for “sexual assault”. So, they didn’t believe the ONLY WITNESS that said it happened, but still gave her money. Orange Man Bad is the only even vaguely reasonable explanation for that.

            “he was convicted of 34 counts of fraud”

            Yes, that would be the “time travel” one that I referenced. Literally, time travel would be required for him to have done what they convicted him of (“interfering in an election” that was already over). Yes, *LITERALLY*, as in “non-figuratively”. You know, the actual definition of “literally” instead of the often-used “synonym for emphatically” that people use annoyingly often. So, if you believe he actually did that, you believe Trump is capable of time travel.

            Among other obvious flaws in that particular case, of which there were MANY. Check lifelong lefty Alan Dershowitz for how bad that case was. If I recall correctly, he stated that he personally witnessed multiple reversible (as in “the case should be reversed”) errors on the single day he sat in to watch. That’s how ridiculous it was. He said “”It’s the worst legal verdict I’ve seen in 60 years of practicing, writing, litigating [inaudible] cases.””

            In fact, so far as I can tell, it stands alone in all of US history for something else amazing… and amazingly bad. Dershowitz again, though you can easily find quotes on this point from any number of other experts:

            “I still don’t know what he was convicted of,” [Dershowitz ] said. “Was he convicted of intent to cheat on his taxes two years later, although he didn’t take it as a deduction? Was he convicted of defrauding voters, who obviously knew that he was a sexual scoundrel?”
            “Was he convicted of seeking to make an illegal campaign contribution, although the contribution didn’t have to be listed until after the election?” Dershowitz asked.
            “I have never seen a case where, even after the verdict came down, we don’t know what he was convicted of,” Dershowitz continued.

            That you would hold that against Trump, when every legal expert on every side agrees on the case itself being a travesty of justice and abuse of the law, shows how dishonestly partisan you are.

            “Epstein conveniently “committed suicide” just a week after talking about cooperating with the feds”

            Nobody believes he actually committed suicide… or at least, that he did so without help. But the list of people who wanted him gone is ********VERY********** long and includes a Who’s Who of the world’s most powerful people – the British royal family is just the highest-profile of a LONG list. As I’ve pointed out, Trump actually has the high ground on that, having thrown him out and never reconciled with him the FIRST time anything came out, unlike… well, pretty much anyone else of note that was involved with him.

            “But I’m encouraged that you at least are using the term “scummy.””

            I do that because it fits the facts. I do my very best to follow the actual facts where ever they go, regardless of my personal feelings. Notice that I am almost diametrically opposed to your position on many things. I did not get there because I want to, but BECAUSE of my dedication to facts over feelings, while it appears that your feelings rule what you believe with little if any care for independent fact.

            So yeah, the most-investigated man in US history, and they have to contort laws in ways never before seen to “get” him for… literally anything criminal. “Scummy” is not “criminal”, unlike many of actions taken against him, which include perjury to the FISA court and getting a warrant for the raid of Mar a Lago without probable cause (as proven by the emails of the people AT THE FBI saying they didn’t have probably cause), as just the highest profile and most obvious among many.

          • “I do my very best to follow the actual facts where ever they go, regardless of my personal feelings. Notice that I am almost diametrically opposed to your position on many things. I did not get there because I want to, but BECAUSE of my dedication to facts over feelings, while it appears that your feelings rule what you believe with little if any care for independent fact.”

            Are you sure about that? So you have no bias to overcome, you’re a blank slate, just going where objective reality guides you, and all the other folks who disagree with you are just emotionally misguided? That’s quite a position to take. Because there’s an awful lot of psychological data to show that we all have biases, blind spots, and base philosophies that make any notion of following “objective reality” problematic at best.

            I think, for example, that you have a bias in favor of Trump because he supports policies you agree with. And that you have a bias against democrats because they don’t. As a result, you look at the $83M judgement against him as a sham, where others look at it as justice.

            I, as another example, have a bias against him, because he supports a bunch of polices I think fall well within the definition of fascist. So when I look at the totality of his actions, words, and judgements against him, I think the probability of him being innocent is basically nonexistent, and from what I can see from the Epstein files most of his friends are in the same boat.

            But you’re correct that we don’t have incontrovertible evidence of his guilt at this point. But then we deal with probabilities, and there we diverge, each to their own bias. Time will tell (assuming the files get fully released, and without redactions to protect the rich and powerful).

          • “Are you sure about that? So you have no bias to overcome, you’re a blank slate, just going where objective reality guides you, and all the other folks who disagree with you are just emotionally misguided?”

            I stand by what I said – “I do my very best.”

            One part of “doing my very best” is being well aware that I have biases.

            I have been wrong before… in fact, I have been wrong many times, and odds are 99.many many 9s percent that I am still wrong about at least some things. Welcome to humanity. The first step is acknowledging that you can and often are wrong, so all facts must be checked hard and all biases beaten back brutally as often as possible. When you do that regularly, you find yourself having OTHERS show you when you are wrong far less often, as you find it for yourself and stop believing that wrong thing.

            The thing is, most basic facts are pretty easy to follow. The facts about that $83 million judgement, for instance, because as best I can tell, **they don’t matter to you**, and you assume I am the same. Led entirely by feelings and biases.

            I looked at the facts about the case. Sure, I had what I WANTED to be true, but I acknowledged that, did my best to set it aside, and looked at the facts dispassionately.

            In edge cases, that can be hard. In this case, it is not. It is a ridiculous case, as I laid out and you completely ignored.

            If you wanted to confirm my opinion that you don’t care about facts and go entirely by your own emotions and biases and the slop you take in from certain media sources, I would be hard pressed to think of a better way to do so than the comment you just posted.

            “he supports a bunch of polices I think fall well within the definition of fascist.”

            Do you even understand what “fascism” is? It has a meaning besides “poopy head that I don’t like”, you know, which as best I can tell, is the primary way the left uses it today. It has boring dictionary definition and functional “this is what the actual fascists who created the term did” examples.

            Functionally taking over industry while leaving it nominally under private ownership is one of the those latter things… you know, like Obamacare did for the health care industry or what happened with the GM bailout (hence why people called it “Government Motors” for a while after that).

            Or making government large and powerful, as all socialist systems strive to do (both the creator of the term “fascism” and the most infamous fascist government of all time thus far were quite adamant that fascism is fundamentally a form of socialism – if the thing you are calling “fascist” is not also socialist, you are getting something wrong). Trump is actively shrinking the government, trying to REMOVE it’s influence in many areas.

            “Fascist” has become another “ist” word to the left – what they call you to signal to each other that you are bad, with little to no regard to whether the original meaning applies. You seem to be a member in good standing on that.

            I have gotten all I can from this thread, and you have fully and thoroughly convinced me that the facts simply don’t matter to you, so I will not be responding any further here (though I will continue in future threads for the benefit of other readers). I leave you to enjoy getting in the last word.

          • I get the last word? Jeez, no pressure. Um…lemme think…

            How about:

            Turnip.

  8. Duck, you said “The agent is not expected to be an expert on the use of every weapon in existence.”
    No, I don’t suppose I’d expect him to be an expert in the handling of wheellock pistols. But modern firearms are fundamentally all the same. Col. Cooper’s Four Laws apply to all of them, and in particular “keep your finger off the trigger” is sufficient for the safe handling of any modern firearm.

    • Ya, but it was a pimped-out Sig 320. Nobody needed to even touch the trigger.
      Just shake it or bump it the wrong way.
      I mean it would have been a lot less headache if he would have just AD’ed himself and bled-out some place quiet like.
      But at least no innocents get hurt.
      We should thank God for small wonders.

    • I agree. But I followed that up by saying “But we have no evidence that he attempted to manipulate that weapon in any manner.”

      Basically – yes – keep finger off trigger and pointed in safe direction.

      What I was getting at though, is that other than doing the 4 rules there is no expectation of him having to clear and make the weapon safe.

      On the other hand, grabbing a gun during a melee and moving around with it perhaps not with a proper handle on it – because you grabbed it during a melee – can result in the gun being handled in a way that other material or objects may interact with that trigger.

      I’m still not sure that the Sig went off in a ND. But if it did, the agent simply attempting to grab it from the suspect first, and change to a better handhold on it later when he had it away from the suspect could introduce one of these variables into the mix.

      A melee is a long way from sterile range conditions, and things you’ll do to keep a gun away from a guy who might want to kill you with it are not always exactly range officer approved.

      • Or maybe if you want to protest with a gun on. You should stand along side the road with a sign?
        And not get violent, combative, or otherwise cross to police?
        To me what happened is what will happen a lot with commie rioters. They don’t thing through what a gun is actually for.
        If for defense. Who are going to be using it against?
        If for offense. When should you use it?
        And as with most communist exactly what you are carrying the gun for (or actually doing for that matter) wasn’t thought through very well.
        This was totally a FAFO situation.
        And like I said before. I’m just glad no innocents get hurt. (Unless the cops get prosecuted.)

Comments are closed.