3 ms·

I’m no fan of guns but showing up with a gun is not illegal or criminal in itself that deserves instant death sentence. So you might want to introspect what you

I’m no fan of guns but showing up with a gun is not illegal or criminal in itself that deserves instant death sentence. So you might want to introspect what you’re saying here.

account42 8mo ago
Neither is showing up to a bank with a gun. Yet a robbery is likely to have much more severe consequences if you are armed.
- kreetx 8mo ago
  It's funny how people use the lawfulness argument for carrying a gun to protest, but don't use the same argument against deporting illegals.
  - donkeybeer 8mo ago
    Nobody is stopping illegals from being deported. They just hace to prove illegality first. If you believe otherwise, I am more than happy to recommend you for imprisonment and deportation first before asking questions.
    - kreetx 8mo ago
      It's already proven as they are following through a court order. As far as I know, they are also first and foremost deporting illegals who are criminals to begin with.
      - donkeybeer 8mo ago
        Are you sure? Give me the numbers of how many are actual real court orders and how many are internal "warrants".
        kreetx 8mo ago
        Warrants are legally not meant to be followed?
        donkeybeer 8mo ago
        Not all warrants are same. Some warrants ICE use don't have legal powers of court issued warrants for example. So yes, its just a piece of nosy Karen paper and you can prevent them entry to your house for example for certain types of warrants.
        kreetx 8mo ago
        Was this particular warrant like that?
        donkeybeer 8mo ago
        What warrant it was has no bearing in whether he, not an individual related to any immigration case being investigated has the right to film it. Most of the warrants being used in the minnesota botch job are the Karen warrants from what can be found anyways.
        kreetx 8mo ago
        I'm sure an investigation into this particular case will surface what kind of warrant (or other legal document) they were carrying out and whether whistling along with police carrying out their work was interference or not. If you know who was going to be captured and how this was only a "Karen" warrant , which doesn't constitute non-interferable police work, post to any source!
        donkeybeer 8mo ago
        You seem to have difficulty with English, maybe its not your main language. What part of the warrant type being immaterial for third parties having a right to film the cops was difficult to understand?
- donkeybeer 8mo ago
  A banks not public property and the people being shot weren't engaging in any crime. A bank can decide what they allow in or not. Its extremely astounding you seem unaware of this. Your "analogy" is completely confused and meaningless.
  - kreetx 8mo ago
    The parent is just exemplifying how in specific situations having a gun with you drastically changes how you are perceived.
    - donkeybeer 8mo ago
      No, it's a completely absurd analogy that doesn't even begin to make sense.
      - kreetx 8mo ago
        It does: in context of an active war having a gun won't surprise anyone. In context of arresting someone and seeing a gun on that person makes that person appear lethally dangerous.
        donkeybeer 8mo ago
        Why? If you are arrested for a parking ticket do you expect to be shot if you also happened to be carrying? It's understandable if one feels scared of someone wielding a firearm while confronting them. Therefore we should shoot any cops who attempt to come near us since they are armed and getting into an interaction with us and they appear lethally dangerous.
kreetx 8mo ago
I have introspected this thoroughly. What I'm saying is if you're confiscated a gun in some highly urgent situation, then the people doing the seizing get even more tense in their mental state, so accidents are easy to make. While it may be worth it to investigate the situation and there may some blame on the officer, then the allusions people are making (perhaps not you) are completely out of whack. I'm sure it's inconvenient if your party or candidate lost the presidential election, but you shouldn't turn to lying for retribution.
- AngryData 8mo ago
  Calling this an "accident" is a pretty huge stretch I must say. They dumped rounds in the guy while he was collapsed face down on the pavement and unarmed.
  - kreetx 8mo ago
    All of the officers didn't know he was unarmed nor whether it was his last firearm.
    - AngryData 8mo ago
      If they didn't know they shouldn't have been firing at him. Soldiers in active warzones wouldn't be given such considerations and allowed to just blast people that they don't even know are armed. There is no excuse. I would like to see any situation where an average citizen could kill somebody in a similar manner and be given the benefit of the doubt. Because "He may or may not have been armed, I don't really know because I couldn't see" would not fly in any US court for any other random civilian.
      - kreetx 8mo ago
        Police (and people in general) react to what appears. They can't stop time, strip-search Pretti, find nothing, then continue. I could also say "there is no excuse for you to not understand why ICE did what they did". No point in these judgements, they don't help your argument. The entire protest isn't a plain protest. They could do their whistling and marching on a public square, yet they walk and whistle along with law enforcement. (I guess the new way to rob a bank would just be to walk in there with the guards, but say that you're protesting and talk about the letters of constitution?)

I’m no fan of guns but showing up with a gun is not illegal or criminal in itself that deserves instant death sentence. So you might want to introspect what you’re saying here.

account42 8mo ago

Neither is showing up to a bank with a gun. Yet a robbery is likely to have much more severe consequences if you are armed.

kreetx 8mo ago
It's funny how people use the lawfulness argument for carrying a gun to protest, but don't use the same argument against deporting illegals.
- donkeybeer 8mo ago
  Nobody is stopping illegals from being deported. They just hace to prove illegality first. If you believe otherwise, I am more than happy to recommend you for imprisonment and deportation first before asking questions.
  - kreetx 8mo ago
    It's already proven as they are following through a court order. As far as I know, they are also first and foremost deporting illegals who are criminals to begin with.
    - donkeybeer 8mo ago
      Are you sure? Give me the numbers of how many are actual real court orders and how many are internal "warrants".
      - kreetx 8mo ago
        Warrants are legally not meant to be followed?
        donkeybeer 8mo ago
        Not all warrants are same. Some warrants ICE use don't have legal powers of court issued warrants for example. So yes, its just a piece of nosy Karen paper and you can prevent them entry to your house for example for certain types of warrants.
        kreetx 8mo ago
        Was this particular warrant like that?
        donkeybeer 8mo ago
        What warrant it was has no bearing in whether he, not an individual related to any immigration case being investigated has the right to film it. Most of the warrants being used in the minnesota botch job are the Karen warrants from what can be found anyways.
        kreetx 8mo ago
        I'm sure an investigation into this particular case will surface what kind of warrant (or other legal document) they were carrying out and whether whistling along with police carrying out their work was interference or not. If you know who was going to be captured and how this was only a "Karen" warrant , which doesn't constitute non-interferable police work, post to any source!
        donkeybeer 8mo ago
        You seem to have difficulty with English, maybe its not your main language. What part of the warrant type being immaterial for third parties having a right to film the cops was difficult to understand?
donkeybeer 8mo ago
A banks not public property and the people being shot weren't engaging in any crime. A bank can decide what they allow in or not. Its extremely astounding you seem unaware of this. Your "analogy" is completely confused and meaningless.
- kreetx 8mo ago
  The parent is just exemplifying how in specific situations having a gun with you drastically changes how you are perceived.
  - donkeybeer 8mo ago
    No, it's a completely absurd analogy that doesn't even begin to make sense.
    - kreetx 8mo ago
      It does: in context of an active war having a gun won't surprise anyone. In context of arresting someone and seeing a gun on that person makes that person appear lethally dangerous.
      - donkeybeer 8mo ago
        Why? If you are arrested for a parking ticket do you expect to be shot if you also happened to be carrying? It's understandable if one feels scared of someone wielding a firearm while confronting them. Therefore we should shoot any cops who attempt to come near us since they are armed and getting into an interaction with us and they appear lethally dangerous.

kreetx 8mo ago

I have introspected this thoroughly. What I'm saying is if you're confiscated a gun in some highly urgent situation, then the people doing the seizing get even more tense in their mental state, so accidents are easy to make. While it may be worth it to investigate the situation and there may some blame on the officer, then the allusions people are making (perhaps not you) are completely out of whack. I'm sure it's inconvenient if your party or candidate lost the presidential election, but you shouldn't turn to lying for retribution.

AngryData 8mo ago
Calling this an "accident" is a pretty huge stretch I must say. They dumped rounds in the guy while he was collapsed face down on the pavement and unarmed.
- kreetx 8mo ago
  All of the officers didn't know he was unarmed nor whether it was his last firearm.
  - AngryData 8mo ago
    If they didn't know they shouldn't have been firing at him. Soldiers in active warzones wouldn't be given such considerations and allowed to just blast people that they don't even know are armed. There is no excuse. I would like to see any situation where an average citizen could kill somebody in a similar manner and be given the benefit of the doubt. Because "He may or may not have been armed, I don't really know because I couldn't see" would not fly in any US court for any other random civilian.
    - kreetx 8mo ago
      Police (and people in general) react to what appears. They can't stop time, strip-search Pretti, find nothing, then continue. I could also say "there is no excuse for you to not understand why ICE did what they did". No point in these judgements, they don't help your argument. The entire protest isn't a plain protest. They could do their whistling and marching on a public square, yet they walk and whistle along with law enforcement. (I guess the new way to rob a bank would just be to walk in there with the guards, but say that you're protesting and talk about the letters of constitution?)