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.

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.

All of the officers didn't know he was unarmed nor whether it was his last firearm.

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.

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?)

It's not illegal to whistle near law enforcement.

Also they're not law enforcement.

They are, and I do think it's illegal to interfere with police work.

How is filming in public an "obstruction"? Do cameras or filmers have telekinetic powers? If you then tell me what is the safe radius where this telekinetic power is neutralized. Would an 800mm lens from 500 yards away be safe?

It is if you are doing it during a police operation.

There is also no fixed radius. E.g, if there is a police op in one apartment, you are filming in another, but there is a wall in between, then the distance is miniscule. If you're walking along with the officer and filming the op as it happens, then you are in the radius. Even worse if you're also whistling.

It's been established many times that it is perfectly legal in US law to film US police on US soil .. there's been state by state settings of acceptable distances, etc.

ICE / DHS / Border patrol aren't US police, of course - they are immigration enforcement agents with more limited powers despite assertions by the current US federal administration to the contrary.

It doesn't seem to be legal to interfere with police work https://youtu.be/QePoawDA_48?si=0mr-lMR_lIRoBDA_, e.g, film or whistle during an operation. The constitution doesn't apply as naively as you think.

The video gives vague platitudes about filming limits just saying "do not obstruct" well duh, now define what not obstructing means, show case laws about the right radius or whatever else to film. No where does the video show he was "legally obstructing" the policework, just cites that a filmer must not obstruct.

I'm sure that the investigation into the Alex Pretti event will give you more exact platitudes to rely on. Unlikely will its determination concur with yours, unfortunately. (But the future will tell, right!)

If they even let the investigation happen properly. This is trumpian "investigation" after all.

For Alex Pretti, there is already a video found where he kicks a police car's tail light loose during an earlier protest (while also carrying a gun to that event, too), so circumstances are stacking against him, unfortunately.

I'd say, simply don't bring a gun to a protest! As then police won't need to do split second decisions about whether you are using lethal force against them or not.

To me saying "simply don't bring a gun to a protest" is according to constitutional law the same as saying "just don't say politically inflammatory things around officers who might accidentally interpret it as a personal threat and beat you".

If cops are too pussy for their job they can quit anytime, nobody's stopping them. The public should not have to give up firearms just because cops piddle their pants ehile being armed armoured ten times as much.

That's a different case, how does it have anything to do with this.

The Alex Pretti shooting is what started this thread (way up).

Though back to filming, while it's legal to just film a cop, then it may not be while an operation is ongoing. If you film the operation in quiet then I guess it's up to debate whether that is interfering with police work. But the protesters were also whistling along with the officers, i.e, giving away that they're there, etc.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Are you sure? Give me the numbers of how many are actual real court orders and how many are internal "warrants".

Warrants are legally not meant to be followed?

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.

Was this particular warrant like that?

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.

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!

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?

Why do you say "not all warrants are the same" while them being different is immaterial?

Also, why even "protest" at these events when the people targeted by ICE haven't determined to be illegal immigrants? They can just present their basis for legal immigration and be done with it.

Ask ICE why they are acting like violent terrorists. Why are you asking protestors who have a legal right to free speech, to carry firearms, to protest in a public space and to film in a public space?

You are probably from one of the lesser countries in the world which is why your confusion. In sane countries people don't need "permission" from the government to engage in speech.

I spoke about warrants because you are the one who brought up "court orders" out of thin air and you clearly showed you had completely made it up since you neither knew about the fake Karen warrants and nor about the proportion of real court orders and fake warrants. I can print a paper saying "Ultra Real Serious Warrant for Arrest of kreetx" too. Would you listen to me and get arrested by me?

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.

The parent is just exemplifying how in specific situations having a gun with you drastically changes how you are perceived.

No, it's a completely absurd analogy that doesn't even begin to make sense.

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.

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.