President Donald Trump

Maybe but they ain't armed (yet)

Lol, and to remove any doubt he abruptly ended the meeting and made everyone leave the room immediately while he stayed seated.

I had to watch it 20 times to hear. we definately got a shart!

Whoa that's a crazy thought. Thread is going to attack you for saying that.

what you can't say that! your playing for the wrong team

I mean you don't blame the second one LMAO . Thats crazy was it two tho I had no idea the point blank shot to the back def done it in. Its pretty normal to shot at someone who had a gun 10 seconds ago when your fellow officer starts shooting at him. zero chance this guy got in any form of trouble (the second shooter) Thats definitely textbook

Also uses "we" quite often.

The funny part is you tardos don't realize that when they throw the 2nd Amendment at you over Pretti, it's to point out the hilarious hypocrisy since the left has always contented that the reason people keep getting shot in America is because of 2Atardos.

But then when a citizen is within his 2nd Amendment rights and not flaunting a firearm like a 2Atardo but keeping it concealed the entire time and never goes for his gun, all the 2Atardos are now singing a different tune.

You, being a fulltime troll, should certainly be able to see the humor in that, no?

I just corrected you that there were two agents who shot him instead of one - I didn't mention blame. However, the second shooter didn't jump into the mix until after the other dude fired 4 shots into his back.

Four. In other words, dude was dead af before he decided to get his licks in with his gun. He also happens to be the same agent who pepper-sprayed him twice and was the one beating him in the face with the cannister. What textbook are you referring to? Are you an American cop who happens to live in Canada?

As for the first shooter, he saw the other agent remove his gun from his waist and then pushed him out of the way so he could shoot him while Pretti's hands were pinned by his head. There is no defense here. This is murder.

Here's a breakdown video of the shooting that is tardo-proof, but it's likely not MoViN.tArGeT-proof.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000010668660/new-video-analysis-reveals-flawed-and-fatal-decisions-in-shooting-of-pretti.html

nytimes

Video: New Video Analysis Reveals Flawed and Fatal Decisions in Shooting of Pretti

Sure, your point probably applies well to the gun toting MAGA crowd.

Unlike your cult, not everyone toes the party line on every single issue.

I've never been a supporter of individuals carrying weapons just because.

When a simple comment that having weapons increases the chances of bad things happening, which you also just posted is the left's position, gets attacked by hair on fire lefties, that's where the problem is.

I even repeatedly said we probably even agree on this. But instead of agreeing that guns are probably bad, many in thread kept adding fuel to the fire.

This is a recurring problem. Always raging upset.

What cult am I in? I belong to no political party.

The problem isn't that people on the left disagree that having a firearm increases the chances of bad things happening; the problem is you're using that as a pretext for why he was shot.

Do you think he gets shot there if he didn't have a weapon?

The conversation has gone over your head. The low IQ conservative crowd has been saying for years that guns are normal and required to prevent government tyranny. Now they are saying carrying a gun is not normal and a justifiable reason for a cop to shoot you. Like with free speech in the aftermath of Charlie Krik getting shot, right wingers flip instantly on an issue because their views are not based on anything but emotion.

Agent 1 pulls the gun from his waist. Agent 2, in full view of agent 1 grabbing his gun, pushes agent 1 out of the way so that agent 2 can shoot him four times in the back.

Do you think agent 2 shot him in self-defense?

housenuts is pulling the classic gymnastic maneuver of saying that his personal view is not that of said conservative crowd, therefore he is absolved of acknowledging the point. So uhhh, checkmate or whatever.

I'm not sure what he was thinking. It was horrible.

I do think the fact he had a gun increased their alertness/gun readiness, and increased the chances of something going awry.

I don't think he gets shot if he never had a gun.

I have acknowledged the point.....

Threadtard view is having a weapon increases the chances of something bad happening, but not in this case.

I didn't ask you what you thought he was thinking; I asked if you think he shot in self-defense?

I asked you if you think he gets shot if he never had a weapon. You have continued not to answer it.

The gun simply gave them the excuse to do what they wanted to do. That much is very clear. No idea why something that obvious is being ignored.

Thread disagrees with you. He was unarmed and you're victim blaming.

The fact he had a gun, which he was legally permitted to carry, played no role in his death.

To be clear, you're asking me if I think an agent who fired on a defenseless unarmed man would have fired on a defenseless unarmed man if he were unarmed?

Multiple things can be true:

-He was unarmed when he was killed
-He was the victim
-He was legally permitted to carry
-The presence of the legally permitted gun was reacted to poorly by agents
-Probability of said agents being ill-trained and reacting poorly was moderate
-There is a nonzero chance he is still killed without the presence of his gun

I'm asking you if you think Alex Pretti would have been shot if he never had a weapon. It's a yes or no question.

He didn't have a weapon when he was shot.

Now answer whether you think the rounds were fired in self-defense.