Republicans - Children being mowed down in classrooms is an acceptable price to pay for our right to carry assault weapons.
Also Republicans - If you exercise your legal right to carry a gun but we don’t like you, we will execute you and use your carrying a gun to blame you for your own murder.
Armed right-wing militias can show up in highly volatile gatherings, amongst angry "lefty" demonstrators and the piggies, with NO fear that some cop, "fearing for his life", will draw down on a militiaman...usually the coppers are too busy tear-gassing and pepper-spraying the protestors, to worry about some nutcase Kyle Rittenhouse blowing away the latter.
That's the state of play here in 2nd-Amendment Land.
Clearly and well-stated, as always. I have to say the New Yorker in me is like "WTF?" with the whole gun thing, on a pure survival basis. They have bigger ones.
To become transformative, White liberals should read and remember this the next time a Black person is executed—that is how the system starts to correct itself. Forget about the right wing—they already take a position of death.
I know this’ll make everyone feel ever so much better.
Here’s some ‘breaking news’-just now, from the NYT:
Folks, frankly I’m thinking you can probably file this one under under ‘Yeah, right.’
-
“Democrat Who Voted for D.H.S. Funding Suggests He Now Regrets It”
Byline: Michael Gold, reporting from Washington DC
-
“Representative Tom Suozzi of New York, one of seven Democrats who broke from their party last week to provide the votes to pass a bill to fund the Homeland Security Department, told his constituents on Monday that he had “failed” in doing so.
In an email sent by his re-election campaign, Mr. Suozzi, who represents a politically competitive district on Long Island, suggested that he was hearing outrage from his community about the vote and had come to regret it. He said that he fell short by not taking into account the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis.
“I failed to view the D.H.S. funding vote as a referendum on the illegal and immoral conduct of ICE in Minneapolis,” Mr. Suozzi wrote. “I hear the anger from many of my constituents, and I take responsibility for that.”
Mr. Suozzi’s statement came two days after a federal agent shot and killed Alex Jeffrey Pretti, 37, an intensive care nurse, in Minneapolis. It was the second fatal shooting of a United States citizen there this month, after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent killed Renee Good, 37.
A small group of Democrats who supported a spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security were on the defensive after the fatal shooting by a federal agent in Minneapolis.”
-
HERE ARE THEIR NAMES:
-
1: ‘Representative’ Tom Suozzi (New York)
2: ‘Representative’ Henry Cuellar (Texas)
3: ‘Representative’ Don Davis (North Carolina),
4: ‘Representative’ Laura Gillen (New York)
5: ‘Representative’ Jared Golden (Maine)
6: ‘Representative’ Vicente Gonzalez (Texas)
7: ‘Representative’ Marie Glusenkamp Perez (Washington).
-
*Tried contacting Suozzi’s office but as I am not a constituent-well, tough tiddlety winks a moi-so very sorry, no go with that.
How very convenient for this brave public servant.
-
Bottom line RESPONSE to this?
Well, I grew up in NYC, so I know the language that’ll take me about a New York second to formulate.
MN is a,very free state carry-wise, but in this case smart thinking would be to leave it in your car. Too late for that now, but as lesson hopefully others heed.
Not about fault. It's about showing up in the midst of a bunch of “shoot to kill “ hired killers. Even the other folks were not even armed and they got killed.
I'm sure ICE has unspoken STK orders. The killers said let's party! Trump wants martial law. It will be declared if enough citizens are killed in the heat of the Battle of Minneapolis. Then we all end up dead or in concentration camps like the one Noem was touring. Keep your powder dry Kiddo!
If "...other folks were not even armed and they got killed" being armed was not a determining factor in this situation. The determining factor is that the thugs wearing masks are cosplaying being law enforcement with little trying and even littler dicks.
"Pretti’s actions appear to have been entirely lawful under Minnesota carry law and core First Amendment protections. He was entitled to be present. Entitled to film. Entitled to assemble. Entitled to carry a firearm. There is no doctrine—statutory, constitutional, or judicial—that says these rights evaporate when federal agents feel nervous."
Why do you say "appear"? You follow up with clear, short, declarative sentences stating everything he did was lawful. So why start off by wimping out in the first sentence and saying it only "appears" he was lawful?
And, yes, it is wimping out. It is a cowardly refusal to call them out on their shit that we see far too often. Despite all the blatant criminality we still see liberals and (especially) Democratic leaders using words like "appears" or "seems to indicate" or "they might be heading toward" or other such fearful refusals to admit the truth. They're not appearing to, they ARE.
It's the failure of 1) Morality 2) Critical thinking. I know, morality is a moving target, but we have been generally moving to somewhat less violence by governments (exceptions always exist) and citizens against their fellows. Critical thinking...I guess that social media and standards of living that our ancestors would marvel at...have made that unnecessary. I can only describe this as regression...a senile society. Not encouraging.
No—you can’t just swap the names, because the cases are analytically and legally different in the only ways that matter.
Kyle Rittenhouse was a private civilian who injected himself into a volatile situation, was charged, investigated, tried, and acquitted by a jury under Wisconsin law. Whatever one thinks of that verdict, the system functioned in the basic sense that accountability mechanisms were triggered: arrest, prosecution, adversarial testing of evidence, and a verdict.
Alex Pretti was a citizen killed by federal agents. That is a different category of power entirely.
The question in Pretti’s case is not whether he made optimal choices under stress. The question is whether federal officers had a reasonable belief that he posed an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm—the constitutional standard governing state use of deadly force. At present, there is no publicly available evidence that standard was met.
Trying to collapse state violence into a debate about private self-defense is a category error. The law does not treat armed civilians and armed federal agents symmetrically, nor should it. One is subject to criminal process; the other wields delegated sovereign power and is constrained by constitutional limits.
That’s the point of the piece.
If someone wants to argue that Pretti should have disengaged as a matter of personal risk management, fine—that’s a prudential discussion. But prudence is not culpability, and hindsight etiquette does not retroactively justify lethal force by the State.
Substituting Rittenhouse for Pretti doesn’t rebut the argument. It avoids it.
Republicans - Children being mowed down in classrooms is an acceptable price to pay for our right to carry assault weapons.
Also Republicans - If you exercise your legal right to carry a gun but we don’t like you, we will execute you and use your carrying a gun to blame you for your own murder.
You forgot "thoughts and prayers" - but otherwise, yeah... spot on.
They forgot the whole point of the second amendment, because it doesn’t fit their narrative or world view.
Armed right-wing militias can show up in highly volatile gatherings, amongst angry "lefty" demonstrators and the piggies, with NO fear that some cop, "fearing for his life", will draw down on a militiaman...usually the coppers are too busy tear-gassing and pepper-spraying the protestors, to worry about some nutcase Kyle Rittenhouse blowing away the latter.
That's the state of play here in 2nd-Amendment Land.
Clearly and well-stated, as always. I have to say the New Yorker in me is like "WTF?" with the whole gun thing, on a pure survival basis. They have bigger ones.
So easy to incite the people to 'protect themselves ' with firearms. This would play right into ICE"s hands.
State of emergency would suspend the midterm elections and TACO would have his Reichstag reason to seize control.
To become transformative, White liberals should read and remember this the next time a Black person is executed—that is how the system starts to correct itself. Forget about the right wing—they already take a position of death.
I know this’ll make everyone feel ever so much better.
Here’s some ‘breaking news’-just now, from the NYT:
Folks, frankly I’m thinking you can probably file this one under under ‘Yeah, right.’
-
“Democrat Who Voted for D.H.S. Funding Suggests He Now Regrets It”
Byline: Michael Gold, reporting from Washington DC
-
“Representative Tom Suozzi of New York, one of seven Democrats who broke from their party last week to provide the votes to pass a bill to fund the Homeland Security Department, told his constituents on Monday that he had “failed” in doing so.
In an email sent by his re-election campaign, Mr. Suozzi, who represents a politically competitive district on Long Island, suggested that he was hearing outrage from his community about the vote and had come to regret it. He said that he fell short by not taking into account the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis.
“I failed to view the D.H.S. funding vote as a referendum on the illegal and immoral conduct of ICE in Minneapolis,” Mr. Suozzi wrote. “I hear the anger from many of my constituents, and I take responsibility for that.”
Mr. Suozzi’s statement came two days after a federal agent shot and killed Alex Jeffrey Pretti, 37, an intensive care nurse, in Minneapolis. It was the second fatal shooting of a United States citizen there this month, after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent killed Renee Good, 37.
A small group of Democrats who supported a spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security were on the defensive after the fatal shooting by a federal agent in Minneapolis.”
-
HERE ARE THEIR NAMES:
-
1: ‘Representative’ Tom Suozzi (New York)
2: ‘Representative’ Henry Cuellar (Texas)
3: ‘Representative’ Don Davis (North Carolina),
4: ‘Representative’ Laura Gillen (New York)
5: ‘Representative’ Jared Golden (Maine)
6: ‘Representative’ Vicente Gonzalez (Texas)
7: ‘Representative’ Marie Glusenkamp Perez (Washington).
-
*Tried contacting Suozzi’s office but as I am not a constituent-well, tough tiddlety winks a moi-so very sorry, no go with that.
How very convenient for this brave public servant.
-
Bottom line RESPONSE to this?
Well, I grew up in NYC, so I know the language that’ll take me about a New York second to formulate.
“No, Congressman, fuck YOU.”
MN is a,very free state carry-wise, but in this case smart thinking would be to leave it in your car. Too late for that now, but as lesson hopefully others heed.
You’re delusional if you think this is his fault in any way, shape or form. If you do, you need to have a conversation with yourself.
Not about fault. It's about showing up in the midst of a bunch of “shoot to kill “ hired killers. Even the other folks were not even armed and they got killed.
I'm sure ICE has unspoken STK orders. The killers said let's party! Trump wants martial law. It will be declared if enough citizens are killed in the heat of the Battle of Minneapolis. Then we all end up dead or in concentration camps like the one Noem was touring. Keep your powder dry Kiddo!
If "...other folks were not even armed and they got killed" being armed was not a determining factor in this situation. The determining factor is that the thugs wearing masks are cosplaying being law enforcement with little trying and even littler dicks.
I’m not sure that would have made a difference. These guts seem to be bloodthirsty. It makes me sick to my stomach.
Weeks left, just weeks, certainly days..
"Pretti’s actions appear to have been entirely lawful under Minnesota carry law and core First Amendment protections. He was entitled to be present. Entitled to film. Entitled to assemble. Entitled to carry a firearm. There is no doctrine—statutory, constitutional, or judicial—that says these rights evaporate when federal agents feel nervous."
Why do you say "appear"? You follow up with clear, short, declarative sentences stating everything he did was lawful. So why start off by wimping out in the first sentence and saying it only "appears" he was lawful?
And, yes, it is wimping out. It is a cowardly refusal to call them out on their shit that we see far too often. Despite all the blatant criminality we still see liberals and (especially) Democratic leaders using words like "appears" or "seems to indicate" or "they might be heading toward" or other such fearful refusals to admit the truth. They're not appearing to, they ARE.
It's the failure of 1) Morality 2) Critical thinking. I know, morality is a moving target, but we have been generally moving to somewhat less violence by governments (exceptions always exist) and citizens against their fellows. Critical thinking...I guess that social media and standards of living that our ancestors would marvel at...have made that unnecessary. I can only describe this as regression...a senile society. Not encouraging.
No—you can’t just swap the names, because the cases are analytically and legally different in the only ways that matter.
Kyle Rittenhouse was a private civilian who injected himself into a volatile situation, was charged, investigated, tried, and acquitted by a jury under Wisconsin law. Whatever one thinks of that verdict, the system functioned in the basic sense that accountability mechanisms were triggered: arrest, prosecution, adversarial testing of evidence, and a verdict.
Alex Pretti was a citizen killed by federal agents. That is a different category of power entirely.
The question in Pretti’s case is not whether he made optimal choices under stress. The question is whether federal officers had a reasonable belief that he posed an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm—the constitutional standard governing state use of deadly force. At present, there is no publicly available evidence that standard was met.
Trying to collapse state violence into a debate about private self-defense is a category error. The law does not treat armed civilians and armed federal agents symmetrically, nor should it. One is subject to criminal process; the other wields delegated sovereign power and is constrained by constitutional limits.
That’s the point of the piece.
If someone wants to argue that Pretti should have disengaged as a matter of personal risk management, fine—that’s a prudential discussion. But prudence is not culpability, and hindsight etiquette does not retroactively justify lethal force by the State.
Substituting Rittenhouse for Pretti doesn’t rebut the argument. It avoids it.
Thanks for clarifying and educating. taking back to the analytic time out corner.