I dunno what you’re talking about. Fox News goes out of their way to repeatedly bring up how irresistible the ladies find him to be.

Lmao I knew when I watched that interview on CNN the other day and Bovino just absolutely bombed it that he was done for. Describing Alex Pretti as someone who was looking to massacre agents, and then a minute later telling the interviewer he cant answer questions because its still under investigation. Wild stuff. The entire interview I just thought to myself why the fuck would he agree to do this.

Anyways, Trump always throws people under the bus. Idk how anyone he works with can trust him. He just fucks everyone around him. It's pretty comical.

This post was edited by Sixers on Jan 28 2026 01:22pm

Anyway disregarding all the spam

Had Pretti been a mad gunman, or had he been an innocent bystander, or had his gun gone off on its own, all would be scenarios that would neatly flip the coin to heads or tails. Instead it landed standing on its side, and we're left with noodly legal and ethical questions. In just the few seconds of the rugby scrum, how many forms of responsibility and justification for each choice minor or major can be dependent on each other and form one big branching tree if you were to chart it out? The decisive point is when the first agent opened fire and what he perceived at the time, because shooting in response to gunshots can be pretty easily justified. But then we have to look at how an officer screamed 'he had a gun' multiple times, which put them on alert for a deadly threat. But that was clearly a justified escalation because he saw Pretti had a gun. And he took Pretti's gun, which was a reasonable choice. And the other officers grappling with Pretti made it hard to see what he was doing with his hands, and even with the benefit of video from multiple angles we can't see if he had an object like a cell phone still in his hands. So its hard to try to pin down what officers could or couldn't see in that split second. And in the aftermath the discussion between the agents make it clear they thought he was armed with a gun, asking each other if anyone secured it. And Pretti was resisting the officers and had put himself into their way on purpose, but he didn't take any serious aggressive action or crimes in doing so. The officers had a legal reason to be there and a lawful purpose in clearing the street, Pretti had chosen to stalk and harass officers that day with a coordinated anti-ICE group, bringing a loaded gun with him.
That all makes it one big mess.

Is there any established caselaw on resisting officers after pepper spray is used? its pretty disorienting and you brain pretty much goes blank with blinding pain. you cant hear or react to things like you can under normal circumstances. if there's an argument for resistance to arrest imo it is only really valid pre-spray. otherwise i think 99% of people would fit the standard for resistance post pepper spray once people pile onto them. all you want to do is rub your eyes. source: i have been pepper sprayed, its not fun.

How much do you guys think rioters get paid? $25/hr or so?

Found this paper on the subject, the full document is available but it’s a long read. Pages 33-44 seem to cover some cases of relevance.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4744704

This post was edited by Chainsaw47 on Jan 28 2026 02:55pm

Well does it really matter in this case though? Its not like Pretti is being charged with a crime nor is the bar for perceiving a lethal threat the same as convicting someone of a crime, vastly different thresholds
I think this case will come down to the difference between the presumption of innocence written into the law and the presumption of guilt written into american culture.

It was a big messy scrum and a reasonable officer could perceive a deadly threat when a guy is already stalking/harassing them, purposefully obstructs them and they see and announce he has a gun while they grapple with him. An officer in that moment could think he had a gun in hand and was about to shoot them. Its a grey area, but by default anything that's in a grey area should come up in favor of the accused. Its pretty reasonable to say the officer didn't form any mens rea and purposefully execute an innocent person, and even if we know the guy was disarmed 1.2 seconds earlier that's with benefit of hindsight and video replay instead of in the chaos. But popular perception and the mob demanding """justice""" will never follow our constitution or english legal tradition

Goom, I know you a long time, but you wont mind if i argue and troll you in this thread ? just this thread, i promise, and you can pm me any time to cop on, ok?

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 28 2026 03:28pm

there are 1030 posts in this thread and most of them are by trolls so what's the difference