Federal agents kill Alex Pretti

Aryeh Jay · 2026-01-26T03:50:13-0600

Trogdor the Burninator said:
People executed in the street and Trump supporters will, as always, hand wave it away.

Oh well, that's fine. When the Republicans lose their next election and the shoe is on the other foot, it'll be good to see former ICE personnel treated the same way they treated others.

Ha, ha, you said "next election". Oh my!

Larniavc · 2026-01-26T04:01:51-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
A bunch of leftists shrieking in the streets, and actively trying to impede the enforcement of a law that they don't agree with

And getting shot in the back for it.

USA! USA!

Landon Caeli · 2026-01-26T04:51:39-0600

In the meantime, not a peep about criminal, illegal immigrant Juan Alvarado Aguilar killing Fletcher Harris, 20, and Skylar Provenza, 19.

...We don't care about those kids dying. Not in line with the politics.

Tropical Wilds · 2026-01-26T06:48:52-0600

Landon Caeli said:
In the meantime, not a peep about criminal, illegal immigrant Juan Alvarado Aguilar killing Fletcher Harris, 20, and Skylar Provenza, 19.

...We don't care about those kids dying. Not in line with the politics.

In the meantime, 3 women are killed every day by an intimate partner or family member. It’s the highest cause of non-medical, untimely death for women.

I guess that means it’s time to round up and deport men to keep women safe.

Landon Caeli · 2026-01-26T07:19:29-0600

Tropical Wilds said:
In the meantime, 3 women are killed every day by an intimate partner or family member. It’s the highest cause of non-medical, untimely death for women.

I guess that means it’s time to round up and deport men to keep women safe.

Oh really? Do you realize Iran killed 30,000 protesters in 2 days (Jan. 8, 9)? And here, we had two deaths, total, not by protesters, but by agitators, forcing armed people to make spit second decisions, while blowing whistles and screaming in their faces.

I think these agitators killed themselves. It's their own fault 100% that they are dead, because they make poor life decisions (bringing a gun while agitating officers :scratch:

) and have zero self-preservation skills.

ThatRobGuy · 2026-01-26T07:30:44-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
Are the citizens or cities obliged to abide by these particular federal directives

Abide by...yes.

There's no such thing as a right to actively ignore and/or obstruct federal rules.

For example, if we ever had a president that got elected based on a promise of "we're going to put in place an assault weapons ban, and use the ATF to enforce it", cities wouldn't be allowed to simply ignore it and call themselves a "2A sanctuary", and then have a bunch of protestors getting into physical confrontations with ATF agents when they're on their way to enforce it.

Stopped_lurking said:
and cooperate?

If they were smart, they'd cooperate.

The did cooperate during the first 6-7 years of Obama's tenure, and ICE operations were going much more smoothly when they were taking custody of people from county jails and city holding cells as opposed to trying to do it at Home Depot.

Stopped_lurking said:
No, it is only ICE and CBP that have shot anyone. It is a bit rich to say that they didn't create the bad outcome (I'm not saying they are necessarily legally culpable, hopefully we get an investigation to comb out the legalities around the shootings). At the end of the day somebody pulled a trigger and it wasn't the "leftists shrieking in the streets".

Protest outside hotel near U of M campus ends in clash with federal agents

Anti-immigration protesters and federal agents again clashed Sunday night outside a hotel near the University of Minnesota campus in Minneapolis.

kstp.com

"We heard some ICE agents were staying at this hotel, so let's go bust up the place and start some stuff"

We know that a certain percentage of these types of encounters will lead to physical escalation, and we know a subset of those will lead to force being used.

Landon Caeli · 2026-01-26T07:40:12-0600

I can't give people self-preservation skills, just like I can't budget everyone's bills for them, or create personalized diet plans for all..

It's on *YOU*!!!

Your life is your own responsibility.

Stopped_lurking · 2026-01-26T07:50:06-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
Abide by...yes.

There's no such thing as a right to actively ignore and/or obstruct federal rules.

A plain reading of this suggests that you are wrong:

"Similarly, in United States v. New Jersey, a district court rejected the federal government’s argument that New Jersey’s Immigrant Trust Directive—prohibiting local jails from providing ICE with detainees’ release dates and requiring that detainees be notified of federal civil immigration enforcement requests—was preempted by § 1373. The court found that the directive did not amount to such “affirmative interference” that would create a preempted “obstacle” under the Supremacy Clause, a clause that establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the supreme laws of the land, thereby trumping conflicting state laws. The ruling relied on the Supreme Court’s holding in Arizona v. United States, which clarified that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)—an expansive federal statute governing immigration and citizenship, and establishing the framework for the admission, exclusion, deportation, and naturalization of noncitizens—gives states the option, not the obligation, to assist federal immigration authorities. In doing so, the district court reinforced that under the 10th Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle, New Jersey’s directive fell squarely within its police powers. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in Ocean Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs v. AG of N.J."

Taken from here Can the U.S. Government Compel States to Enforce Immigration Law?

ThatRobGuy said:
For example, if we ever had a president that got elected based on a promise of "we're going to put in place an assault weapons ban, and use the ATF to enforce it", cities wouldn't be allowed to simply ignore it and call themselves a "2A sanctuary", and then have a bunch of protestors getting into physical confrontations with ATF agents when they're on their way to enforce it.

If they were smart, they'd cooperate.

The did cooperate during the first 6-7 years of Obama's tenure, and ICE operations were going much more smoothly when they were taking custody of people from county jails and city holding cells as opposed to trying to do it at Home Depot.

Protest outside hotel near U of M campus ends in clash with federal agents

Anti-immigration protesters and federal agents again clashed Sunday night outside a hotel near the University of Minnesota campus in Minneapolis.

kstp.com

"We heard some ICE agents were staying at this hotel, so let's go bust up the place and start some stuff"

We know that a certain percentage of these types of encounters will lead to physical escalation, and we know a subset of those will lead to force being used.

Still ICE and CBP have directly created at least two bad outcomes.

ThatRobGuy · 2026-01-26T07:52:18-0600

MarcusGregor said:
That's the problem, Rob. This isn't about winning or losing by a political party. It's about the rule of law and the constitution being upheld which applies to everyone regardless of party. This administration is BREAKING THE LAW and ignoring the Constitution left and right. We don't just lose our rights because a certain political party won the election and decides we don't have them anymore. Not without due process, which is what the Left has been saying from the beginning.

It is about winning and losing. (and the poor reaction to losing)

It's an entitled mentality from those in the big blue cities of "When we lose, we don't care what the other 65% of the country wants or voted for, WE get to decide what happens... but when we win, democracy is sacred and you have to go along with what we want because it's the mature thing to do"

And the left hasn't been saying this from the beginning, at least not consistently.

Where were the mass protests in the street pertaining to the 3 million Title 42 removals the Biden admin conducted?
(noting, the Title 42 removals were fast-tracked removals that bypassed hearings, appearances before an immigration/asylum judge, and no formal deportation proceedings)

While there were some critics of it, they were far fewer, and much more muted.

I certainly didn't see anyone busting out windows or throwing things at cops over it.
(because it was being done in the name of "taking covid seriously" so they didn't mind it as much because that was important to them)

So it's not a case where either party is the shining house on the hill when it comes to strict adherence to some sort of pure, unwavering constitutional absolutism. It's more of a case of the two parties having different sets of concerns and criteria for when it's okay.

MarcusGregor said:
So, NO. We absolutely should NOT just let the party in power do whatever it wants

It's not about letting them do whatever they want, we're talking about letting an agency do their one job. It's not like ICE was deployed to conduct some operation that was wildly outside of the scope of their job description.

It'd be like complaining because an administration decided to ramp up drug enforcement via the DEA, that is their one job.

MarcusGregor · 2026-01-26T08:07:11-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
It is about winning and losing. (and the poor reaction to losing)

It's an entitled mentality from those in the big blue cities of "When we lose, we don't care what the other 65% of the country wants or voted for, WE get to decide what happens... but when we win, democracy is sacred and you have to go along with what we want because it's the mature thing to do"

And the left hasn't been saying this from the beginning, at least not consistently.

Where were the mass protests in the street pertaining to the 3 million Title 42 removals the Biden admin conducted?
(noting, the Title 42 removals were fast-tracked removals that bypassed hearings, appearances before an immigration/asylum judge, and no formal deportation proceedings)

While there were some critics of it, they were far fewer, and much more muted.

I certainly didn't see anyone busting out windows or throwing things at cops over it.
(because it was being done in the name of "taking covid seriously" so they didn't mind it as much because that was important to them)

So it's not a case where either party is the shining house on the hill when it comes to strict adherence to some sort of pure, unwavering constitutional absolutism. It's more of a case of the two parties having different sets of concerns and criteria for when it's okay.

It's not about letting them do whatever they want, we're talking about letting an agency do their one job. It's not like ICE was deployed to conduct some operation that was wildly outside of the scope of their job description.

It'd be like complaining because an administration decided to ramp up drug enforcement via the DEA, that is their one job.

We see things very differently.

ThatRobGuy · 2026-01-26T08:15:58-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
A plain reading of this suggests that you are wrong:

"Similarly, in United States v. New Jersey, a district court rejected the federal government’s argument that New Jersey’s Immigrant Trust Directive—prohibiting local jails from providing ICE with detainees’ release dates and requiring that detainees be notified of federal civil immigration enforcement requests—was preempted by § 1373. The court found that the directive did not amount to such “affirmative interference” that would create a preempted “obstacle” under the Supremacy Clause, a clause that establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the supreme laws of the land, thereby trumping conflicting state laws. The ruling relied on the Supreme Court’s holding in Arizona v. United States, which clarified that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)—an expansive federal statute governing immigration and citizenship, and establishing the framework for the admission, exclusion, deportation, and naturalization of noncitizens—gives states the option, not the obligation, to assist federal immigration authorities. In doing so, the district court reinforced that under the 10th Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle, New Jersey’s directive fell squarely within its police powers. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reached the same conclusion in Ocean Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs v. AG of N.J."

Taken from here Can the U.S. Government Compel States to Enforce Immigration Law?

Still ICE and CBP have directly created at least two bad outcomes.

That ruling would suggest that they can't be compelled to aid in the enforcement of the federal law, however, that's not the same as refusing to abide by the law or actively obstructing it.

Hence the reason why I said
Abide by: yes
Cooperate with: "if they're smart, they should"

However, certain policies and actions drift into the area of obstruction

Some examples,
- cities that pass statutes saying that ICE can't apprehend anyone in city/state government buildings.
- states like Washington & New York passing a new rule saying that misdemeanors can only carry a maximum sentence of 364 days, reason being, because receiving a sentence of 365 days or more triggers automatic deportation proceedings
- passing rules suggesting that city employees (which includes LEOs) aren't allowed to ask about immigration status when working in their official capacity

There a difference between "declining to assist in enforcement" and "actively attempting to harbor people to help them evade enforcement"

To your last part. If there's a guy sitting at the bar, and I spend the first hour of the night getting in his face, calling his wife names, intentionally knocking his drink over, etc... and he eventually ends up beating the snot out of me in the parking lot later. Is he solely responsible for creating the bad outcome? Or was I heavily complicit in the pattern of escalation that led to the ultimate outcome?

Landon Caeli · 2026-01-26T08:25:09-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
"We heard some ICE agents were staying at this hotel, so let's go bust up the place and start some stuff"

Keeping agents up all night intentionally, last night, banging pots and pans, I think is a good idea. It will cause the ICE officers to make potentially worse split-second decisions today, when the agitators begin blowing whistles in their faces this morning.

Perfect idea.

Stopped_lurking · 2026-01-26T08:26:01-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
That ruling would suggest that they can't be compelled to aid in the enforcement of the federal law, however, that's not the same as refusing to abide by the law or actively obstructing it.

Hence the reason why I said
Abide by: yes
Cooperate with: "if they're smart, they should"

However, certain policies and actions drift into the area of obstruction

Some examples,
- cities that pass statutes saying that ICE can't apprehend anyone in city/state government buildings.
- states like Washington & New York passing a new rule saying that misdemeanors can only carry a maximum sentence of 364 days, reason being, because receiving a sentence of 365 days or more triggers automatic deportation proceedings
- passing rules suggesting that city employees (which includes LEOs) aren't allowed to ask about immigration status when working in their official capacity

There a difference between "declining to assist in enforcement" and "actively attempting to harbor people to help them evade enforcement"

I'm unclear over if they have passed any significant line. Are there any rulings against the states so far, I guess the DoJ have started suing over it?

ThatRobGuy said:
To your last part. If there's a guy sitting at the bar, and I spend the first hour of the night getting in his face, calling his wife names, intentionally knocking his drink over, etc... and he eventually ends up beating the snot out of me in the parking lot later. Is he solely responsible for creating the bad outcome? Or was I heavily complicit in the pattern of escalation that led to the ultimate outcome?

Ultimately, he is responsible for his actions.

He should have asked management to remove you. And they would if you had done all the things you describe. It doesn't give him a reason beat you up.

ThatRobGuy · 2026-01-26T08:30:08-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
I'm unclear over if they have passed any significant line. Are there any rulings against the states so far, I guess the DoJ have started suing over it?

Ultimately, he is responsible for his actions.

He should have asked management to remove you. And they would if you had done all the things you describe. It doesn't give him a reason beat you up.

And what happens when "management" says "Sorry, but the guy who owns this bar has given me orders not to assist you, and we've told our bouncer to stand down and not get involved"?

Landon Caeli · 2026-01-26T08:33:26-0600

It's funny when people claim personal responsibility doesn't matter, knocking people's drinks over and agitating someone in a bar - all that matters is that the one who loses in the end is "the victim"... And then these same people decry Trump over his personality traits, and how he communicates.

...Makes no sense.

Stopped_lurking · 2026-01-26T08:38:02-0600

ThatRobGuy said:
And what happens when "management" says "Sorry, but the guy who owns this bar has given me orders not to assist you, and we've told our bouncer to stand down and not get involved"?

Then he should leave that bar, management is obviously irresponsible.

Did you have any court cases that supported your legal interpretation?

Stopped_lurking · 2026-01-26T08:39:52-0600

Landon Caeli said:
It's funny when people claim personal responsibility doesn't matter, knocking people's drinks over and agitating someone in a bar - all that matters is that the one who loses in the end is "the victim"... And then these same people decry Trump over his personality traits, and how he communicates.

...Makes no sense.

Are you saying that anything I have posted implies this? It is not about who is the victim but who first makes it physical you have a right to self-defense.

Landon Caeli · 2026-01-26T08:41:24-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
Then he should leave that bar, management is obviously irresponsible.

Did you have any court cases that supported your legal interpretation?

Yeah, if you get forced out, you can be the victim then. Always be the victim.

Landon Caeli · 2026-01-26T08:42:46-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
Are you saying that anything I have posted implies this? It is not about who is the victim but who first makes it physical you have a right to self-defense.

You think spilling drinks on someone's lap isn't physical enough? I sure do.

Try starting a conversation with someone in the next urinal and then turn mid-stream and pee on their leg. What do you think happens next?

Stopped_lurking · 2026-01-26T08:43:38-0600

Landon Caeli said:
You think spilling drinks on someone's lap isn't physical enough? I sure do.

Why did you add someone's lap. If it is a hot liquid it would be considered assault, but you still can't punitively punch them in the face. Where I live you are allowed to use force stop someone from hurting you (this is depending on jurisdiction, I guess). If they spill something on my property (eg clothes or phone) intentionally, it is destruction of property. I still can't punch them in the face after the fact.

Landon Caeli said:
Try starting a conversation with someone in the next urinal and then turn mid-stream and pee on their leg. What do you think happens next?

Urinating willingly on someone would be considered harassment where I live, so they would be ok to push me away to stop me from urinating on them (legally). If they gave me a beating they would probably face assault charges. There is a principle of proportionality at work here.

How is this discussion analogous to what is happening in Minneapolis

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Federal agents kill Alex Pretti

Stuck on a ship.

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Ramped up on Prednisone

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever

Ramped up on Prednisone

Part of the IT crowd

Ramped up on Prednisone

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

New year, new you...

Part of the IT crowd

Ramped up on Prednisone

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

Ramped up on Prednisone

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ramped up on Prednisone

Ramped up on Prednisone

Well-Known Member

Similar threads