Oh yes the fuck they are. That's the core of the American Democrat Party platform. Fewer whites, more non-whites, more power for them, it's the 101 class of their playbook and this is almost universally accepted at this point.

No it's 100% irrelevant to the incident where he was shot. Just another avenue to attack his character or obfuscate with context not applicable to the mechanics of the shooting.

This post was edited by RedFromWinter on Jan 28 2026 07:51pm

Its more evidence.



He slipped out of his jacket while they were holding it to escape them, they didn't bother trying to recapture him



Its absolutely relevant, it establishes his intent and pattern of conduct.
You know that until the extra details about his signal app handle and this video came out, it was just as plausible Pretti was simply a bystander who happened to be randomly in the area when ICE was there, pulled out his phone to film them and walked into the street because he saw other people do it first. I didn't take it as a given that he was part of any organized harassment/stalking/attacks on ICE- at most opportunist- but now we can say with certainty he woke up that morning planning to obstruct agents while armed.

If we found out that one of the ICE agents was an avid stormfront poster and had threads where he talked about itching to get a chance to gun down some antifa commies, don't you think that would be relevant?

How can this evidence justify him being killed. His motive at that time in the video is not dispositive. No matter what he did in the past, it doesn’t justify being shot. He wasn’t *brandishing and didn’t attack law enforcement

This post was edited by KC_816 on Jan 28 2026 08:21pm

The bad faith defending of violent criminals who get themselves killed by attacking law enforcement is just tiresome and sad

It's so transparent and pathetic. This is how y'all get thrown in labour camps with massive popular support.

This post was edited by El1te on Jan 28 2026 08:12pm

Well everything you said just flies in the face of prior law. We get to judge people by their patterns of conduct and motive, and it gets admitted as formal evidence at trials all the time even if its prior bad acts, so long as it has a direct nexus to the crime at hand. Which it does in this case. It establishes that Pretti was an anti-ICE militant who was stalking and attacking federal agents for weeks, seeking violent conflicts while armed with a deadly weapon.

There is no relevant arguments about 'justifying him being killed'. We aren't a society of time wizards, we can't decide whether he gets killed or bring him back to life if he didn't deserve it. All we can debate are consequences. And when it comes to arguing whether the agents deserve any punishment for the shooting, its very relevant to look at the totality of circumstances of the shooting- who perceived what, who intended what. It absolutely matters that the person who got shot is also the person most responsible for creating the circumstances of his own wilful choices.

You’re arguing evidentiary rules, not deadly-force rules. Prior acts might be relevant in court, but they don’t replace the standard: imminent threat in the moment.

Where is the imminent lethal threat at the moment of the shots?

If you go to the bar and get in a fight drunk and punch a guy for pushing you and his skull bounces off the ground and they die was the murder justified? No it wasn't but that's not how volatile situations often pan out. It's not a matter of proportionality or fairness or whatever, once you inject yourself in highly volatile situations consequences can very often escalate outside what's perceived as fair or proportional.

The guy keeps showing up and getting into physical altercations with feds. He is clearly the aggressor and initiates this on two separate occasions with video proof and not very far apart time wise which probably means he was regularly doing this. On top of that he's retarded enough to do so with a gun on him? We've really moved so far away from simple common sense in our social contract where people feel emboldened enough to go after federal agents time after time and society is somehow supposed to look at this and be on his side?

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jan 28 2026 08:48pm

It matters for culpability for the same reason as the is allowed as evidence, it establishes the motive and pattern of conduct that led to a confrontation
Take the same examples we've already brought up earlier in the thread. The guy who got chased by a BLM mob and turned and fired on them after trying to run away, and the guy who shot someone who attacked him while he argued with a driver about a handicapped parking spot. In the former case, prosecutors showed he had been on the 4chan gun board making racist comments and talking about how he wanted a chance to shoot a rioter. They used it to establish that he brought a gun to a protest with the intent to start a confrontation. And the guy who shot someone over a parking spot? He had been striking up arguments trying to bait people into fights over that parking spot for months and shot the first person who punched him.

We now have evidence that Alex Pretti was engaged in a pattern of seeking violent confrontations with federal agents while armed with a deadly weapon. It establishes that Pretti was the instigating actor

If I was stalking ICE officers with a gun there would be 20 dead ICE officers. At least. You guys really have a way of spinning things out of proportion.